OBR 7.09k "It is interference by a batter or a runner when: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and in the umpires judgement, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball"

In a discussion by our Association on this rule, many felt that if a catcher overthrows the firstbaseman, and the runner is out of the lane, then the runner should be called out. I contend, that unless it is clearly obvious, (and I havent figured out how to judge this) that the catchers throw was off target because of the runner being out of the lane, then there is no interference. The offense is entitled to benefit from errors of the defense, if possible.

Your comments are appreciated. Even if I am wrong!

The rule is not about the throw. It's about interfering with the ability to make the catch at 1B.

Bob

I understand that Bob. But if the catch is not able to be caught. What do we have then?

This is simple
 

Any benefit of your doubt goes to the defense. The offense is the one that's potentially in violation of the rules.

Runner's Lane Violation
 

In order for the batter runner to be called out for interference it has to involve a throw. The throw should be on a play from behind i.e. the pitcher or the catcher and perhaps rarely the third baseman. At least one foot needs to be completely out of the lane e.g. left foot completely in fair territory, no part of the foot on the foul line. Especially at higher levels the throw should be a quality throw. Jim/NYC

Per the 2002 BRD, there is a PBUC ruling that the throw can come from anywhere.

Read the last line of the rule !!!!!!
 

There must be a throw. It must be a quality throw (one capable of retiring a runner). A throw over the head and beyond his reach is not a quality throw. A throw on target and in the dirt is a quality throw (many balls are short hopped and caught---retiring a runner).

Note, however, the rule does not state interfering with the catcher's throw. Regardless of whether you felt the catcher threw poorly due to a runner's location, that's still not what the rule reads. Therefore, a runner outside the lane cannot <u>be the cause</u> of the poor throw unless having interfered in some other manner other than merely being outside the lane.

Still, a quality throw need not be touched by the fielder.
If the throw is capable of retiring the runner, and it zooms over the shoulder of a runner outside the running lane and then untouched past the fielder, it is quite possible it was not caught due to the fielder being shielded from the throw. As Jim states, benefit of doubt should go to the defense when the runner is improperly outside the lane.

The exception I will provide is when the fielder is calling for the throw on the foul side of the bag after an uncaught 3rd strike and the runner moves to fair territory (outside the lane). The runner has then proven his intent NOT to interfere. I would not consider a throw striking him as cause for a lane violation. The intent of the rule is to disallow the runner to crash or shield from the throw the fielder attempting to make the catch.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Play from behind
 

Very good point which is covered in Baseball Rules Differences (BRD Twentieth Edition pg 138). I still don't buy it but it is "official". Lets say I'd give the offense every benefit of the doubt if the batter hit it to shortstop but I'd give the defense every benefit of the doubt if the play was a bunt in front of the plate.

[Edited by Ump20 on Jun 27th, 2002 at 08:22 AM]