Running Lane Violation. No call.
 

Last night's SEC game of the week on ESPNU (Florida at LSU) . Bases Loaded, 1 out, ground ball, F6 throws home for FO, F2 then moves well inside and throws to F3. Ball hits F3's glove then BR who seems to be well inside foul line. From view on TV, it looked like BR hindered F3's ability to catch the ball.

OC goes to HP Umpire, then to U1. Umpires confer. No interference is called.

When OC was asked about it during interview a few innings later he says he got the impression each umpire thought the other would make the interference call?

Ive worked very little 3-man (and no 4-man as they had), but I'm assuming PU still had responsibility for running lane after FO at Plate? Any thoughts?

I'm thinking that if the ball hit F3's glove, why the heck didn't he catch it. And if the play happen at the bag, well at that point the runner is allowed to be there.

Agree with the first sentence.

The second is true assuming the runner had been in the lane until that point.

And, to the OP -- yes, it's still primarily PU's call.

Anyone have video? From the description ... if the throw hit F3 and THEN BR, wouldn't the throw have been too late to get BR anyway? And also, as mentioned above - if the throw hit F3's glove, how did BR interfere with it?

Video is first play in highlights at this link:

05/02/2013 Florida vs LSU Baseball Highlights - YouTube

(Just realized first throw was from F1 not F6 but does not affect OP)

Rlv
 

I have a RLV. I think F2 double clutched because of the RLV.

Hard to tell without replays, but it seems to me that the BR either knocked the ball out of F3's mitt, or got hit by the ball after F3 failed to secure it. Either way, it happened just as the BR was crossing the bag. I really don't see anything that would make me think that the BR violated the runner's lane.

Double-clutching is the catcher's fault, not the BR's. You cannot justify a violation because the catcher failed to throw immediately.

Thanks for the video, although I can't really tell from that. I agree with you that he was out of the lane... but I can't tell at that speed and at this angle what happened to the throw when it got to first base. If the throw got to F3 first and he just failed to catch it, I don't see the BR having anything to do with it - just a bad catch. But it may have hit BR first, which would be interference.

Unfortunately the rule doesn't let you make that call.

To me
 

1. Looks like catcher through it outside instead of inside.
2. Who ever was covering 1st didn't help either.
3. Unless that is where catcher through it to get an interference call.

Angle wasn't very good but I'll go with 1 & 2.

It is not justification for that call, it is evidence of a RLV. When F2 did release the throw B was more than a step or two from reaching 1B and in fair territory the whole trip. IMO B interferred with F3 attempt to glove a quality throw.

Whether the catcher does a double clutch or a backflip before throwing is not evidence of anything at all, and is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters (assuming a runner outside the lane, which this guy was, and assuming a quality throw) is whether he interferes with the ACTUAL throw that was made.

You added after my reply! :)

If this is your opinion on the play, then it's definitely interference.

My point on this play was that I can't tell that from this angle and at this speed. I don't THINK it was... but I don't KNOW that it wasn't.

I hit the "save" button after your reply. I hadn't seen your reply before I started editting my incomplete post, but that;s neither here or there.

B gets to be in fair territory to touch 1B, and I'd give him a step or two grace (if he's not interferring). When B re-enters the video (throw has already been made), he is in fair territory with several strides to go before reaching 1B. It looked to me like F3 was getting his teeth out of the way because of B's interference.

Does RLV interference happen in an instant (as the ball passes B) or is RLV interference an on-going process from the time of throw to the attempted gloving?