Running Lane Question?
 

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

Time, that's interference, batter/runner is out.

Does the ball have to arrive before the runner? not necessarily

Does the ball have to hit the runner? Not if he sails it, in your judgement because of the running lane violation

Does the runner have to intentionally interfere with the play at first?
No, at higher levels, when they're running inside of the running lane, they know what they're doing.

No INT on that one. The throw has to be a quality throw.

Did the runner actually interfere? For example, if there was a clear throwing lane and F2 just blew it, I wouldn't like to see that called interference.

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).

Agreed. NCAA also has a similar interp.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

What about other runners that may be on base?
 

If there had been R1 on first, and interference is called on B/R. Would that runner have to return to first due to the interference?

Runner returns to the base last touched at the time of interference. It's conceivable that R1 could have reached 2B if he had been stealing and the bunt play were slow developing, but generally R1 will return. Certainly the "expected" call is to return the runner.

There could have been interference that the defense worked their way around, no?

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

Why couldn't there be interference and yet an out?

I'm not a pro, but I was taught an immediate dead ball meant an immediate dead ball.

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of FED OBS. A fielder has to allow "some access" to the base. Slide 35 of the FED powerpoints seem that the fielder has to allow some access...not necessarily the access the the runner desires. FED clinicians?

I would agree with you that a fielder only allowing access to the back of the base...yes, I would agree...OBS.

The throw must be a quality throw in OBR. The interference is actually with F3's right to catch the ball, not with the throw itself. A throw over F3's head is not a quality throw and F3's right to catch the ball has not been interfered with.

FED has this situation in the 2004 Interps:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

So one might conclude that FED wants to be different, again. Maybe in the interests of safety they don't want the catcher to be penalized for not plunking the runner in the back.

Our SI said "access" meant part of the side of the base the toward which the runner was advancing, and not necessarily the part the runner would prefer to touch. (Well, not in those exact words, but that is what he meant.)

What if in the original situation, the throw is a good one, it doesn't hit B1, but B1 blocks F3s view and F3 doesn't catch it?

NCAA is similar in that the AR's state that should the fielder (Almost always F2) be required to change positions to make a throw or the ability to make the throw is impeded by the batter-runner out of the lane then interference may be called. Even has a nice diagram.

Yes, it's in the 2006 preseason bulletin. It reads:

It must be a quality throw. It is not interference if the throw had no realistic chance of retiring the batter-runner, unless in the umpire’s judgment the bad throw is a direct result of the batter-runner’s improper position.

What do you do with the play where BR is offline and the throw hits him and cause enough lag in time or ability to make a clean catch? Reward BR for rules violations?

I got a good throw, BR is offline, I got Rs elsewhere, I am looking to keep R stuck to their originating bases.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The FED obstruction rule is not an apt comparison, since it's a delayed dead ball. There can be obstruction which, if it doesn't result in an out, we later ignore.

As you point out, running lane interference is an immediate dead ball. So we can't have a play where there's interference and then the defense gets an out.

However, as I pointed out, I still have to judge that there's interference. That judgment is sometimes immediate, for obvious cases, and sometimes takes a second, in borderline cases.

In the TWP I was responding to, the throw deflected off the BR and F3 caught it. I won't call interference here because I don't think it's interference. So it's not correct to describe the case as "interference followed by an out."

In a case of genuine interference, I will kill the play and call it, so the defense still will not make an out (since the play's dead). So again, we will not have interference followed by an out.

Even if I'm very slow to call interference, the play is technically dead at the time of interference, no matter when I call it. So by rule, we cannot have interference followed by an out on this play.

But perhaps I haven't answered your question?

Time of pitch, actually, unless there's an "Intervening Play." However, there are even conflicting interps. regarding that, as well: is it still "time of pitch" or "time of interference" when an Intervening Play occurs? Decisions, decisions.

Regardless, in the OP, it's time of pitch.

Citation please?

Here are a couple to start with: FED 8-2-9 and OBR 2.00 - Interference. In both codes, runners return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

The only code where runners might return to their TOP base is NCAA, which was not relevant to the OP.

Rule 2.00 (Interference) Comment: In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

So in the OP, B/R is interfering by being out of the running lane, and the inteference happens before B/R reached first.

TOP

Hm. Thanks Dave. That comment was missing from the BRD. Should have looked in the book...:o

And as I mentioned, in the event of an "Intervening Play," one source says other runners except for R3 return to time of interference bases, another source says time of pitch.

Ump25,

Which reference says "time of pitch" following an "intervening play"?

Not arguing, just curious. I don't recall seeing that one.

JM

The Jaksa/Roder manual stipulates it's a return to TOP base while the MLB Umpire Manual says it's a return to TOI bases when the Intervening Play occurs.

It's important to remember that the runners'-lane rule refers to the runner's interference with F3 taking the throw, not the fielder throwing. If the throw isn't perfect, therfore, the umpire's analysis should focus on whether F3 could have caught the ball if the runner weren't violating. Thus, unless the throw is so bad that no reasonable fielder could have caught it the umpire should resolve doubt on the side of calling interference. Especially in upper-level games where the fielder's athletcism permits them to field most of what comes at them.

For baseball officials that also officiate football, an good analogy is to a deep official's analysis of whether a pass is uncatchable to permit the waiving off of a DPI flag. College-level players are good enough to catch many a bad pass, so the pro and D-1 philosophy is to resolve doubt on the side of catchable.

My 2008 J/R says TOI.

"If a runner from third has acquired home plate despite a play against him, and then interference occurs by the batter-runner before he reaches first base, the run is allowed to score, unless the interference was the third out. All runners not out on such a play are awarded the last base touched before the time of the interference. The play at the plate is called the "intervening play."

Well, my J/R says TOP.

Personally, I don't care which it is so long as there's ONE correct answer. I've used the TOI when an Intervening Play occurs for logical reasons. If R3 is allowed to score, returning to TOP bases would then mean R3's run is to be negated, which it's not.

R3 scores in this case, unless the interference is the 3rd out. It's the other runners, if they exist, affected by TOI ruling.

My 2004 J/R says "TOP base, with the following exceptions" and the intervening play is an exception. The 2008 edition specifically indicates TOI for the intervening play exception.

So if you don't care as long as there is ONE correct answer go with TOI, since 2008 J/R indicates such, and more importantly the MLBUM agrees.

DG, I agree that TOI is the newer and better answer.

But so you know that UMP25 isn't making stuff up, my copy of the 2004 J/R explicitly says TOP in example 11(a). I suppose it says TOI now.

Which is what I've done, for logical reasons, as I mentioned above. Fortunately, though, I have yet to have this specific play occur. I DID, however, have a Running Lane Interference call that ended the first game of the doubleheader I had last Saturday. Home team was trailing 4-1 with runners on base and two outs in the last inning. I had to bang out the batter-runner for R.L.I., which ended the game. Not a pretty site. It made the plate meeting for game two that much more enjoyable. Not.