Rule question

mcrowder

Can't be interference without a throw is not a catch-all. It applies to batter interference in the lane specifically because this rule says that a batter is only out for being out of the running lane if she interferes with the fielder's opportunity to CATCH a quality throw. So there can't be interference by the BATTER in that case unless there was a quality throw to interfere with.

Interference elsewhere can be all sorts of things, many of which have NOTHING to do with a throw. The rest of the interference rule refers to the interference with the chance to MAKE A PLAY (as opposed to catching a ball). Big difference, and it applies in this sitch.

I grant you that we are not mindreaders, and don't know why F2 held up... but in a case like this (a non player streaking across the line of sight of a player considering making a throw), I'd err on the side of penalizing the offense here absent any other information.

IRISHMAFIA

Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire.

This is from the OP. The scenario offered specifically states that the catcher "begins to throw" to 3B.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this is interference based on the information offered. No mind reading, second-guessing, reading into the play, etc.

If you choose not to call INT due to "no throw, no INT", what are you going to do when the catcher clocks the CR-to-be in the ear-hole?

"But Blue, you told me I had to throw the ball!"

« Previous Page