Rule question

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire. "

How do we know why she did not throw? Do we know that she didn't want to risk a bad throw? Or that it was too late? Or that the ball slipped in her hand so she stopped the throwing motion? Or that she didn't have a brain freeze?

What ever happened to "No throw, no interference?"

If this play was down the 1B line, and the B-R was outside the 3' lane, and the catcher turned to you and said "I can't throw Blue, she is in my way," would you call interference?

If a batter backed out of the box and was right in front of a catcher who failed to throw on R1 trying to steal 3B, would you call interference?

What is the difference between these plays and the OP's play? Are we letting the legality of the CR cause us to automatically assume the catcher was interferred with?

WMB

In this particular case, you may be right. Perhaps a throw was required.

But, I disagree with hardened concept of "no throw, no interference." I think that is a good general rule as far as a trying to determine which way to go in an iffy-situation.

Let's change the circumstance a little and you tell me if you think this is batter's interference:

Situation: Right-handed batter. Runner stealing 3rd. The catcher receives the pitch and decides to create a throwing lane behind the batter - which is not too uncommon. But the batter backs up, thinking she is getting out of the catcher's way when, in fact, she is moving directly into the catcher's path. The two players are practically on top of one another as the catcher rares back to throw and finds the batter in her face. The catcher aborts the throw attempt. The two players never actually touch although they were just inches from one another.

Batter's interference?

I would say - ABSOLUTELY!

Does the catcher really have to slam her throwing hand into the batter's helmet in order to demonstrate that she had been interfered?

Granted, this completely a judgment call on the part of the umpire. But I think there is ample room to rule batter's interference in this situation, although an actual throw was never made by the catcher.

Did the batter hinder the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner? If the answer is, "Yes!", then it's interference. It's up to the umpire to determine what constitutes a legitimate attempt to make a play. An aborted throw can be an attempt.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN