runner interference

gipper · #1 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 10:47am

B1 bunts in front of plate, and runs toward first base outside the running lane, actually in fair territory. A2 throws toward A3 but has to throw over B1's head, ball sails down right field line. Do we have runner interference, even though ball did not actually hit B1?

mcrowder · #2 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 11:01am

BR interference requires a quality throw. No out.

BuggBob · #3 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 11:09am

Sorry, I disagree. The catcher threw around the runner therefore the runner did interfere with the play.

wadeintothem · #4 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 11:15am

only thing that is required is for the br to interfere with the fielder taking the throw outside of the 3' lane or inteferes with a fielder making a throw.

So if in your judgement the br interfered, its an out. If it was just a bad throw and the runner had nothing to do with it, its not.

mcrowder · #5 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 12:52pm

The rule specifically states interference with a fielder TAKING a throw. Not making a throw. A catcher who makes a bad throw for fear of hitting a BR (who might end up back in the running lane by the time the ball gets there) is simply "Dumb Move Catcher".

Buggbob - it's nice to have an opinion of how you think things OUGHT to be ... but you've gotta back it up by a rule. Reread this rule and tell me how you justify calling this interference, based on the RULE, not opinion.

debeau · #6 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 11:54pm

Mcrowder. I agree with you on this interference
PS Still cant get my head around your obst interpretation

debeau · #7 (**permalink**) Mon May 02, 2005, 11:55pm

Sorry no interference

mcrowder · #8 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 07:39am

I wasn't aware I had my own personal OBS interp!

What can't you get your head around? (Start new thread, I guess, instead of hijacking).

rwest · #9 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
The rule specifically states interference with a fielder TAKING a throw. Not making a throw. A catcher who makes a bad throw for fear of hitting a BR (who might end up back in the running lane by the time the ball gets there) is simply "Dumb Move Catcher".

As you say, rule 8-2-E states that the batter-runner is out

"When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with the fielder TAKING the throw at first base;"

Is it your interpretation, mcrowder, that the interference has to be with the 1st baseman's receiving the ball? If so at what point does it become interference? Suppose we have a rabbit who is running outside the lane and the catcher has to take a step to the left to throw to first. Further suppose that that extra step the catcher had to make was enough for the batter-runner to beat out the throw.

Wouldn't you have interference here? What does "taking the throw" mean? Does this require direct interference with the 1st baseman, similar to a colision? Based on case plays I don't believe this is ASA's interp. If the batter-runnner is outside the lane and gets hit with the ball, this is interference, even if the batter-runner was just a few feet from home plate. They weren't interfering with the 1st baseman. They weren't intentionally interfering with the throw. It was just poor base running by the batter-runner.

Where in the rule book does it require a quality throw for it to be interference? I've never seen that phrase used. Is that implied or just an interpretation? The fact that the batter-runner was outside the lane may have caused the poor throw. The catcher may have adjusted her throw at the last moment causing the errant throw. Throwing the ball is part of "taking the throw". Ask yourself if the catcher would have thrown the ball differently had the batter-runner not been outside the lane. If so, then I believe we have interference.

Bottom line it all comes down to judgement. Quality throw is not part of the rule, per se. It may be implied. However, it can also be interpreted that if in the umpires opinion the batter-runner caused the errant throw then we could have interference.

Dakota · #10 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 01:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rwest
... with the fielder TAKING the throw at first base...

Quote:

Originally posted by rwest
... with the 1st baseman's receiving the ball?

Hmmm... "fielder" - "1st baseman" ... "taking" - "receiving" ... a difference without a distinction? I must be missing your point with this.

Quote:

Originally posted by rwest
even if the batter-runner was just a few feet from home plate.

The running lane does not begin a "few feet" from home, unless you consider 30 to be "few."

You are right, it is a judgment, but you cannot assume a perfect catcher had that darn runner only stayed in the lane. You have to call the play as actually played by the players. Sometimes a bad throw is just a bad throw.

The notion of a "quality throw" is merely one way of saying there must be a play before there can be interference. And that is clearly in the rule book. Check the definitions. If the fielder has no shot at making the play anyway, in or out of the running lane makes no difference.

Remember, a batter-runner has committed no violation merely by being out of the running lane. The violation comes when she interferes with the fielder at 1st taking the throw by being out of the running lane.

Riddle me this: where in the rule book does it say the batter-runner may not interfere with the fielder MAKING the throw by being out of the running lane?

rwest · #11 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 01:58pm

Is the batter-runner out of the lane interfering with the fielder at 1st or the catcher throwing the ball when the ball hits the batter-runner?

I can make a case either way. Answer me this, when is it interfering with the fielder taking the throw? When the fielder is about to receive it? Or is it interference when the catcher throws the ball and it hits the batter-runner who is out of the lane?

The case plays say its interference when the ball hits the runner out of the lane. I consider that interfering with the throw.

Also, by definition interference is an act that "impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play". Forcing the catcher to take a step to the left or right in order to make a clean throw to 1st is hindering.

I agree that some throws are just bad and I would not call interference on a throw that had no chance to get an out. For instance, throwing it 5 feet to the left of the 1st baseman. However, the original post says the catcher had to throw over the batter-runner's head. That by definition is hindering and could be called out for interference. Had the runner not been there she would not have had to alter her normal throw and the ball may not have sailed. Its all judgement. I believe a case can be made for interference.

tzme415 · #12 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 02:21pm

What I see here is how do we interpret the word 'TAKING', as in when is the fielder in the act of taking the throw. Is the fielder in the process of taking the throw when the throw is being made or after the throw leaves the hand of the thrower? I don't know. I dislike calls where I have to determine what the player was thinking, the less the better. If there is a bad throw, now I have to determine if the thrower is trying to avoid hitting the runner. While I appreciate a catcher not wanting to hit the BR in the back, if the BR is out of the lane it isn't the catcher's fault if the BR gets hit. This is a tough one.

rwest · #13 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 02:28pm

Its a HTBT. You have to see the entire play and the quality of the throw can be used to determine the result. However, that should not be the only factor or the one of most importance. Also, interference does not require contact. I don't want to get into the situation where we force the catcher to hit the runner in order to make a quality throw. And what is a quality throw? If the 1st baseman has to stretch for it, I'd consider that a bad throw. However, the catcher may have to throw it a little wide in order to avoid the runner. In that case the poor throw was caused by the runner being out of the lane and I have interference.

Dakota · #14 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 02:53pm

I'm not at all saying that it is not possible for a BR out of the running lane to interfere with F3 taking the throw from F2 by causing F2 to delay the throw, or by getting in the way of the throw such that the throw is a lob or something.

All I am saying is in making the judgment just don't be too quick to let the catcher off the hook for a bad throw merely because the BR happened to be out of the lane.

Defenders have to find a clear throwing lane all the time. If they can't do it skillfully, that part is not the BR's fault.

rwest · #15 (**permalink**) Tue May 03, 2005, 03:03pm

I agree that we should not let the catcher off the hook. However, if the catcher has to find a clear throwing lane and its a close play at 1st, the batter-runner is out if they are out of the lane. In my mind, the play would not have been close had the runner been in the lane. If its not a bang-bang play then the quality of the throw has more bearing. If she had time to move and still throw the runner out then there was no interference. Its those cases where they have to alter the throw to get the runner out in time that I'm thinking of.

Also, we can't let the batter-runner off the hook either.