Int or not?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Coach, the fielder's ability to complete the play despite your runner's hindrance does not excuse his interference

Not on runner's lane INT though right?

Or are you saying, call it, if they make the play they're intending to make, then we nullify the INT? (minus anything malicious)

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Not on runner's lane INT though right?

Or are you saying, call it, if they make the play they're intending to make, then we nullify the INT? (minus anything malicious)

johnny,

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think I would treat a runner's lane interference call any differently in this regard, and were I to call it and the defense were able to complete the play (not likely, but possible, I guess) I would certainly NOT "nullify" the interference.

The only sitch I can think of where that would be proper is on a BI (or UI, I guess) with the catcher's throw to retire a runner. If the initial play is successful, the interference is "disregarded".

Anything else, I'm sticking with the interference - which means there's an out AND any remaining runners return.

JM

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

johnny,

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think I would treat a runner's lane interference call any differently in this regard, and were I to call it and the defense were able to complete the play (not likely, but possible, I guess) I would certainly NOT "nullify" the interference.

The only sitch I can think of where that would be proper is on a BI (or UI, I guess) with the catcher's throw to retire a runner. If the initial play is successful, the interference is "disregarded".

Anything else, I'm sticking with the interference - which means there's an out AND any remaining runners return.

JM

I guess I was referring to a play where F2 would throw to F3 and we have runner lane INT...if F3 successfully fields the ball and we have B/R out at 1B...there was INT, but he made the play...so you call the INT and return runners on that type of play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I guess I was referring to a play where F2 would throw to F3 and we have runner lane INT...if F3 successfully fields the ball and we have B/R out at 1B...there was INT, but he made the play...so you call the INT and return runners on that type of play?

Please describe a specific play where that happens -- I'm having trouble envisioning the BR hindering F3, but F3 "successfully fields the ball" (by which I assume you mean catches the throw).

[johnnyg08]

Yes. Doesn't the provision for runner's lane interference deal with F3's ability to field the throw?

Example: Bunt down 1BL, F2 fields, throws, B/R is inside the runner's lane about 20 ft from 1B, F2 successfully threads the needle by throwing the ball over B/R's left shoulder and F3 catches the ball for a 2-3 putout.

If the ball goes off of B/R's helmet and out into RF...you have running lane INT right?

So...I'm asking the other poster if he would call it before he saw the result of the attempted play?