Admit I am out of touch,
 

With this one;

I am in my third year of retirement from umpiring, I may have missed a change.

Over on the ABUA site there are quizzes:

One of the plays is about a runner not in the running lane and the catcher throws the ball 7' over the head of the runner and F3.

ABUA says there is a no running lane violation as the throw was wild, batter runner is safe (all codes agree).

Ok, so as little as two years ago NFHS made it very clear that ANY throw caused this to be a violation by the batter-runner. There did NOT have to be a quality throw.

Simply asked:

Has the NFHS rule changed?

Thanks,

t

No! 8-4-1g - The batter-runner is out when he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.

From the 2004 Interpretations:

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)

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)

It seems clear to me that a quality throw is necessary in FED, except when F2 throws over top of F3's head in attempt to throw over the BR who is in line of sight between F2 and F3 and that is difference between FED and other codes.

8-4-1g and 6.05(k) read similar, but as we all know there are interpretations of the written rule that are universally followed. It is not all black and white.

I know of no change in recent years.

Not aware of any changes in HS. Quality of throw still nota factor. Probably just a factor of the increase in expert opinions we have now days.

8.4.1.g.1 apply?
 

This infraction is ignored ... if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

Tim,
 

Congratulations on your retirement! Been away for a while and didn't know. Glad to see you still involved. Hope you are enjoying your extra time!


Doesn't there have to be a throw though?

First varsity game I ever had, this play happened.

R3, Bunt in front of the plate, BR deliberately ran in in fair territory whole way to first. Catcher fielded the ball and pump faked on his original attempt to make the throw because the BR was blocking the view of the F3. I remember thinking, that's interference "if he throws it". Well he did. Over everyones head and into right field. I called interference on the release, not caring where the ball went because of the original action of the catcher. Didn't toss the coach because I was still wet behind the ears.

I think I would have had an out in any rule set.

INT in FED (assuming the BR was past the 45' line), E2 in OBR.

The NFHS gets many right. This is not one of them, IMO.

Of course.

There is no running lane violation in OBR?

Not that I have a Yankees game scheduled.

Not when F2 airmails it over everyone's head.

It's running lane interference, and OBR has a stricter standard according to which it has to be actual interference with a quality throw.

It also mentions intentionally interferes if I'm not mistaken, which is what I was referring to. I understand now that a quality throw is also needed.

Thanks

Doesn't there have to be a throw though under FED rules?

Yes. No throw, no interference in Fed.

Running lane INT does not have to be intentional. You're confusing it with INT with a thrown ball.

For running lane interference, yes. Other forms do not require a throw.

I know you were answering the question, but wanted to keep it clear for a newer umpire reading this.