Running Lane Question?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

B1 executes a perfect bunt and runs all the way to 1st in fair territory. The catcher comes out and throws the ball over 1st baseman's head. What should be the determining factors as far as calling or not calling offensive interference?

Does the ball have to arrive before the runner? Does the ball have to hit the runner? Does the runner have to intentionally interfere with the play at first?

Thanks,
Robt/ SC

To the last three questions: no.

Pro instruction is that the throw must be a "quality" throw in order to judge interference. So F2 "sailing" the throw would probably not qualify, though it's probably HTBT.

I seem to recall FED being more lenient concerning the quality of the throw, but there must be a throw to call running-lane interference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

To the last three questions: no.

Pro instruction is that the throw must be a "quality" throw in order to judge interference. So F2 "sailing" the throw would probably not qualify, though it's probably HTBT.

I seem to recall FED being more lenient concerning the quality of the throw, but there must be a throw to call running-lane interference.

Correct. In FED, you must determine if BR caused a bad throw (interference) or if F2 just made a bad throw (play on).

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Correct. In FED, you must determine if BR caused a bad throw (interference) or if F2 just made a bad throw (play on).

Agreed. NCAA also has a similar interp.

[dash_riprock]

You sure? I know FED is specific in that it is INT if either a fielder or the throw is interfered with, but NCAA only speaks to the B-R interfering with the fielder taking the throw.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Correct. In FED, you must determine if BR caused a bad throw (interference) or if F2 just made a bad throw (play on).

For FED, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense here: it's going to have to be a pretty lousy throw -- well over F3's head, or way past his outstretched glove -- for us to play on.

Of course, this is HS ball, and it can happen that way: I'm not saying anything about probabilities, just the benefit of the doubt.

[greymule]

Do the codes differ on what to rule if the ball hits the BR but F3 catches it anyway in time for the out?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by greymule

Do the codes differ on what to rule if the ball hits the BR but F3 catches it anyway in time for the out?

If the defense makes the play, then BR has not interfered. Play on.

[UmpJM]

mbyron,

But, you've already made your call before knowing whether or not the defense "makes the play", no?

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mbyron,

But, you've already made your call before knowing whether or not the defense "makes the play", no?

JM

Running lane interference is an immediate dead ball, but I have to judge that there is interference before I call it. If the throw from F2 hits the BR and then is caught/gloved by F3 for the out, then I will not call interference (because there was none).

I might say "that's nothing!" after the play to show that I saw that the runner was out of the lane and hit by the ball, but that's about it.

I don't think that there would be much time lag in this particular play (which is a TWP, btw) between the thrown ball touching the BR and the fielder making the play.

Here's a different scenario: BR running out of lane, throw hits him, and the ball rolls on the ground toward F3, who has to come off the base to pick it up. This one I'll kill, and not wait to see whether F3 can make the play.

The difference is that in the first play, F3 is catching F2's (deflected) throw, so no interference; in the second, F3 has to do something more than simply receive the throw, so interference. In the second play only, BR has disrupted the pattern of play by being out of the running lane.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by greymule

Do the codes differ on what to rule if the ball hits the BR but F3 catches it anyway in time for the out?

Pretty much a zero percent chance that I'm calling INT on the quote sitch