runner interference

[debeau]

I agree with Dakota .
The rule you quote is the fielder taking the throw not as in this case the throw from the catcher .
If the BR waved their arms or yelled then we have interference as you stated because the BR hindered or confused the fielder .
For the BR to be out the ball has to come in contact with the fielder while they are inside the diamond .
Once catchers get this idea they will hit the runner and so the runner wont then run there .(Hopefully)
The way you deal with it catchers will catch on (no pun intended ) and just throw rough because they know you are going to call intereference .
In the close calls at 1st the throws should be spot on or near and the catcher is silly if they dont throw because it might hit the BR .
In the not so close plays the catcher steps and throws .Simple .

[rwest]

Originally posted by debeau
I agree with Dakota .
The rule you quote is the fielder taking the throw not as in this case the throw from the catcher .
If the BR waved their arms or yelled then we have interference as you stated because the BR hindered or confused the fielder .
For the BR to be out the ball has to come in contact with the fielder while they are inside the diamond .
Once catchers get this idea they will hit the runner and so the runner wont then run there .(Hopefully)
The way you deal with it catchers will catch on (no pun intended ) and just throw rough because they know you are going to call intereference .
In the close calls at 1st the throws should be spot on or near and the catcher is silly if they dont throw because it might hit the BR .
In the not so close plays the catcher steps and throws .Simple .

Wrong. Its the same rule. The ASA case book uses 8-2-E to rule that a Batter-runner is out if the ball hits them while running outside the lane. Obviously ASA thinks that this is interferring with the fielder "taking the throw" even though the ball never even gets close to the first baseman. Its one and the same.

Also your statement that the ball has to come in contact with the fielder is wrong. Did you mean runner? In either case, contact is not required for interference. Check out the definition. The last sentence says...."Contact is not necessary".

We all agree that the batter-runner should run inside the lane. We also all agree that simply running outside the lane is not enough for interference. Where we differ is on what action on the part of the batter-runner constitutes interference. We can't give the batter-runner a pass simply because there was no contact.

You actually want the catcher to throw and hit the runner? Why? Contact is not necessary. Read the definition. I care more for the safety of the players than to require the catcher to throw and hit the runner. The rule does not require contact, so why do you?

No, catchers wont throw rough just to get interference. I'm smart enough to know the difference. Your way, a runner gets beaned. My way, the catcher makes a throw around the runner and if its a close play and I believe the batter-runner hindered the catcher to the point that the runner would have been out otherwise, we have interference and an out.

[debeau]

Under ISF rules there is a difference as to a throw to first base and a fielder taking a throw .
But you are right in that contact does not have to occur .
I actuallyy have called interference for a runner running in the diamond then at the last moment swerving on to the safety base causing F1 to drop the ball .
It is rare fot this INTF but I will concede that you are right .