This is exactly correct. I honestly have no problem with an umpire seeing this play and ruling INT. I have a huge problem (obviously) with those who think it should have been called because the catcher double clutched - i.e. those who refuse to read and understand this rule.

Please clarify!

Rule clearly states, while the ball is being thrown to first base.

I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call. I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.

If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference. The double clutch can’t be the reason for interference because no interference has occurred yet. Without a quality throw (except in Fed), there is nothing yet to be interfered with.

PU had a throw F1/F2, a force out at HP...then he has F2 double clutching...why the double clutch?...because B was violating the RL rule. It is not interference yet, but the double clutch might alert an umpire that interference might occur soon.

Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.

If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.

Not a lot of rules make much sense when you only quote about 1/6 of it. Look at the entire rule ... specifically - what the runner must interfere with for us to rule interference.

Anyone? Thump said, "It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released". You said the double clutch was "evidence of an RLV" - that's kind of absurd... the runner's feet stepping out side the lane is the evidence you should be concerned with.

You are completely misinterpreting the rule then. You say that it is obvious BR violated the RL rule. There is no rule that says you can't run wherever the heck you want. Running somewhere does not violate anything. The RL rule is very clear and very easy... it says that IF YOU INTERFERE WITH THE FIELDER'S ABILITY TO CATCH A QUALITY THROW... and if you are out of the RL when you do so, then you have committed interference. Being out of the lane is nothing - the lane is simply a SAFE place where you cannot be ruled out for interfering with a thrown ball. You have the entire concept Bassackwards if you feel that leaving the lane is violating a rule.

Thump did more clearly than you did.

I agree with all of this (except the bassackward part). I have no problem ruling INT on this play, although I wish we had a view that actually showed what happened to the ball between the time it passed (or touched) the batter and when it went bounding away. I only have issue with the concept that what the catcher does before throwing matters at all. You (and thump) need to understand that you have newbies on here reading and not posting. They are going to read your post, say to themselves, "That makes sense", and then rule someone out for being out of the lane when the catcher didn't even throw ... because they've followed your logic further and decided he didn't throw because of that runner "breaking a rule" or "cheating".

I get that ... and agree that worrying about a future conversation with coach should have the same amount of bearing on the call as the catcher's backflips. :) Zero, that is.

FED-fielder or throw
NCAA-fielder
MLB-fielder

Sorry, my point earlier was FED on the throw, we are talking NCAA. But you said not in any rule set. Would I be correct in FED RLI can be called on the throw?

When did I say the double clutch was a reason to call a RLV? I was describing the play in question!

Exactly. The double clutch is irrelevant. If you're taking that into account in making your ruling, you're wrong. If you think you can call INT as early as "right after the double-clutch" or "right after the throw is made", you are also wrong. Even in FED.

The runner still has to interfere to be guilty of interference.

For example, if the catcher double clutches, then throws, and the runner beats a good throw anyway - no INT. Or if the catcher DC's and throws, and the runner is back in the lane before he affects the first baseman at all - again, no INT.

I'll say this again. Running out of the lane is not illegal. INTERFERING while out of the lane is illegal. (And in FED, being the CAUSE of a bad throw while out of the lane is also illegal).

Your last statement is what I was looking for MD.

The double clutch is irrelevant, was just a little giveaway that runner may have been out of the lane is all.

Cool.

This year NCAA added an A.R. to 7.11.p - the running-lane rule - which is identical to OBR 6.05(k),(except for the new A.R.):

"If the batter-runner is outside the running lane and alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the throw, the batter-runner shall be called out."

Yes, but the "alters the throw" part doesn't mean what it does in FED. We still aren't to reward a poor throw in NCAA.

Agreed. I'm not sure what those words mean. How do you alter a quality throw?

It seems FED wants to penalize no matter what!

In bigger boy ball, make a play!

Here's what I took from the discussion:

Old rule: "... interferes with the fielder."

Play: Throw hits runner outside lane; interference is called.

Rat: "But the runner didn't interfere with the fielder since the ball never got there."

Rules committee: Let's add to the rule.

I always could justify RLI if the ball hit B when he's outside the RL. The "alters the throw" part seems to be the addition to RLI criteria.

If NCAA came out with this A.R. doesn't that imply that they want RLI called more often (like on the play in the video)...to penalize the cheaters ?