I suppose you would have to judge if the throw was a quality throw. If it wasn't, then you cannot rule INT. If it was, you could have INT.

Sometimes we just have to umpire.

Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?

In FED, if the runner caused the bad throw, get the interference.

If it was just a ba throw anyway,then don't.

Mmmm,
 

Bob, in the video conference Eliot Hopkins told the SRI's that ANY throw would be all that is neccessary. He was clear that quality of the throw had nothing to do with the running lane violation.

A throw six feet over F3's head?

To that, let me just say "ha ha ha ha ha ha" and get it over with.

A post earlier in the thread asked about F5 throwing one that forces F3 into the runner (out of the lane). This, to me, is a quality throw. A quality throw is not one that is in the chest of the receiver, but merely one that can be fielded well by F3 absent the interference by a runner running outside the lane. Also, if the throw is bad because of the interference (in my judgment) I won't hesitate to call it, either. But any throw? C'mon.

From 2004 Interpretations:

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)

Nfhs
 

Rich, Eliot said: "It is not an umpire judgement if a throw was of quality or not . . . ANY throw, with the batter runner violating the runners lane rule, is all that is neccessay."

One of the viewers asked about a throw 20' over the BR's head and F3. Eliot noted that if the runner was in violation he is out.

T

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is all.

I'd like to see Eliot put on gear and make that call.

What BS.

Hmmmm,
 

OK, let's disect this for a second:

The NFHS Baseball Rules Committee is the ONLY rules committee that has a permanent Chairman. All other rules group rotate the chair position. Kyle McNeely is the permanet chair of the rules group.

This "could" lead one to believe that Kyle has replaced "Brad" as being the main voice of baseball rules at the high school level.

Just thinking things through . . .

T

PS: We should all remember that of the four reasons high school baseball are written one is: "Working with poorly trained umpires."

That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.

I inquired about this situation at an association meeting and the answer was, "Yes, the runner must be in the running lane". Just my take on the play.

You are correct. I was only posting the one that referred to throwing over F3's head.

From the same 2004 Interps:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception).

It would seem Elliot's take on this appears to differ from the published 2004 Interps. It would also seem that FED wants a throw over F3's head to be ruled interference but other bad throws not.

.......I can understand trying to read the throw from F2 in determining if it is truly Running Lane Int...... But if I see the batter-runner out of the lane, and weve all seen it, sometimes they make almost a left turn into fair territory, its pretty safe judgement he is trying to interfere with the throw.
With that, whether F2 throws the ball one foot over, or six feet over F3's head, isnt the cause heavily weighed on the side of INT by BR? Do we automatically determine that since the throw was six feet over F3's head, its more of a bad throw than INT?
Meaning, in watching the play, F2 is trying to get his throw to first, around/over/ the BR? And in seeing him trying to get his throw to first he tries to throw over the BR, because the BR is out of the lane. So what, if F2 lobs it a couple feet higher, the percentages would have to extremely high that the high throw was caused by BR not being where he is supposed to.
This does fall under the sometimes "ya just gotta umpire"...
On these, grab the call by the balls, and call INT.
--The BR is not where he is supposed to be
--In reading the play, we can tell he is trying to interfere. (True, we cant get inside the BR's mind, but come on, we know what it is.
--F2F1 etc is doing what he is supposed to. Fields the ball, and tries to retire BR
--Throws the ball over the heads of BR/F1 due to the INT.....
--Unless the ball goes straight up into the air like a rocket, its INT.

Your honor, the evidence is weighted heavily on the side of the Defense...

We had our rules meeting today, and I'm sure it was the same slide. Our instructor already knew it was a hot topic, and stated that his interpretation was that the running lane included the lines. He also stated he would be contacting the other 4 interpreters in the state to get a final ruling between the five of them, and would notify us through the organization on how it should be called.