NFHS Interp. Running Lane

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I think you need to read situations 19 and 20 together. IF the runner is in a position to (potentially) cause an errant throw, call the interference. If the runner isn't in position to cause an errant throw, don't call interference, even if the trhow hits the runner while the runner is out of the lane.

[/B]

Accoridng to RefMag's"Study Guide: College Baseball Rules" the NCAA ruling on these two situations would be the same.

[DG]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Accoriding to RefMag's "Study Guide: College Baseball Rules" the NCAA ruling on these two situations would be the same. [/B]

Correct, but this all started with a question about Situation 20, which is a throw over F3's head. How about this play from the same NCAA study guide.

"Play 2-48 B1 is called out on strike three. The pitch gets away from F2 and rolls along the first base line extended. B1 is running in fair territory about two-thirds of the way to first when F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3. He throws the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot reach the ball. Ruling: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, it was attributable to B1 being outside the lane. His position interfered with F2 making a quality throw."

Well this threw me into a search for a similar OBR case play, anywhere. I could not find. I did find a good discussion of running lane plays in Carl's new book "The Usual Suspects" and there were several points made:

- "The catcher must make a good throw."
- "If the fielder would have had trouble gloving the ball, even without the presence of the batter-runner, then the umpire will not call interference."
- “The throw must be a quality throw; i.e., it cannot draw the fielder from the bag (JR Play 8, JEA Play 1).
- “He may not claim he didn’t throw because he feared for the safety of the batter-runner. [Example: Carlton Fisk swings and nicks a pitch in front of the plate. He races for first, not in the running lane. I can just imagine Johnny Bench turning to Home Plate Umpire Doug Harvey and saying: “Gee, Doug, I can’t throw, I might hurt Pudge.”]”

For this specific play, ball thrown over F3's head to avoid a runner in the running lane, it would appear that FED and NCAA agree on the ruling (at least PLay 2-48 from the Study Guide, and Situation 20 from the FED website agree), and that OBR "professional" rulings would require a quality throw.

However, for any league playing OBR rules (youth leagues such as Babe Ruth), but with "safety" modifications, it would seem logical to use the FED and NCAA ruling, for when F2 throws the ball over F3's head, since it is a safer ruling than requiring the runner to be hit with a throw to get the ruling.

I can not imagine that a professional catcher would ever consider lobbing one over the runner because he is in the way. He would sling one directly to F3 and if the runner is hit, so be it. Could it be that this call is simple for leagues with safety rules and in the pros it would not be necessary to make this call, because it would not happen?

PS - after posting the above comments earlier I found this in J/R.

"in regard to the 45-foot running lane, a batter-runner cannot be guilty of interference for altering the throw of a catcher or other fielder (i.e., the fielder throws poorly, hesitates to throw, or does not throw)." That would seem to be the official OBR ruling, however, my question still remains regarding making this call in leagues below the professional level that play OBR rules with safety modifications.

[Edited by DG on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 04:10 PM]