No violation in FED or OBR, that I can see. Had he been hit by the throw farther from 1b, say 5 or 10', I think we have RLV in both. Had he been hit as he stepped toward the bag with his last step, as the ball arrived, then NO RLV in either, since the bag is in fair territory and that is the one place he can be, to step on the bag. Since he was not hit, and fielder caught the ball, he did not interfere.

There is a FED interp that says if the fielder throws over F3 head due to runner out of running lane, then call RLV.

DG, the runner in this clip never left the running lane. Are you talking in general terms or refering to this clip?

45 FT Line
 

The interference talk here is a moot point. Utley was on the inside of the line . He was safe at first. As to calling interference, it is the PU's call.

If anything, running in fair territory actually helped F1's angle.

It certainly didn't hurt his throw. If he stops, plants, and fires, we may have something here.

By the time F3 was fielding, Utley was where he should have been, so no INT on that part of it.

I'm not so sure the foot was pulled, really hard to tell and that is a banger no doubt. A crappy play by the F1 if you ask me.

Well both I guess, I saw the clip and he never left the lane, but the throw arrived as he was stepping toward the bag with his last step, the thrown ball was caught, just not in time. If the ball hits him in the back here it does not matter. What is the difference between running in the running lane and stepping his last step to the bag and getting hit in the back vs. running entire distance out of lane and getting hit in the back on his last step?. Running out of the lane is nothing until the ball arrives and there is interference with fielder receiving. That the ball was caught proves no interference with the fielder receiving the throw.

Those of you who say you would call interference on this play if the throw hit the B/R, please explain the rule that allows you to make this call.

From the clip it appears that the throw came from a F1 who was on the move and in a very off balance position and I don't think position of the runner had anything to do with it being high. It was caught so not interference. Had he thrown it over F3's head it would still not be interference because it was not a quality throw. Had he hit him in the back while he was stepping to the bag no interference because he is allowed to be there for the last step.

I got nothing on the RLV question. Off his leg is a separate subject and I doubt any of us have not missed at least one of those.

I think you may be right. I looked at it again and I think he may have got back within in the lane in time.

But, as an academic exericise, let's say he did not.

Would you consider a lane violation in that case - even if the ball doesn't hit the batter-runner?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

No, no interference because F3 caught the ball.

No interference on an avoid-collision theory, because that theory is not an accepted interpretation, as pointed out by Mr. Umpire back in post #12. Similar to a F6 who backs off a ground ball to avoid contact with a R2.

No neighborhood-play out call because the throw caused the pulled foot.

But I thought, contrary to Mr. Umpire, that the neighborhood-play theory could apply at first base, assuming a high-quality throw, in order to avoid F3's foot getting stepped on by BR. At the risk of hijacking the thread, can I get some yays or nays on this?

I will go with the nay on this one, no neighborhoods at 1b.

I suppose I could dream up a scenario where we have a qulaity throw to F3 and he pulls foot to avoid collision, but its one in a million.

So yay, we could have a neighborhood play at first, but nay 99.9% of the time.