Inconsistency on interference?
 

Here is a quote from NCASA Ump in thread about possible interference by runner running from 2nd to 3rd:
"Interference is the act of an offensive player that hinders the defensive player's ability to make a play on a runner. The key word for me is 'hinders'. Did the runner's actions pr position force the defensive player to adjust their throw? Did the runner's action or position force the devensive player to stop prematurely? Did the runner's action or position force the defensive player to hesitate?"

In other threads in other forums, I have seen discussion of the question of interference by a batter-runner running outside of the running lane between home and first base, or of running inside the base line in fair territory, after a third strike not held or a bunt. In those threads, it seems that the consensus of the umpires is that unless the catcher actually throws the ball there is no interference. That seems to me to be inconsistent with the last two questions in the description of interference quoted above. I would think that if the runner is running in fair territory squarely between the catcher and the first baseman, so the catcher's view of the first baseman's glove is blocked from her view, the catcher has been hindered from making a play whether she actually throws the ball or not. If the catcher does not throw the ball because the runner is blocking her view, then hasn't she been hindered from making a play? Hasn't she been forced to stop prematurely? Hasn't she been forced to hesitate?

thanks for your replies.

We dont see what the catcher sees or what they think .
So how do we know if even they were going to throw .
In the case between home and first 9 times out of ten there would have to be a throw . Maybe even 10 out of ten
Thinking Thinking Thinking

It is not our job to judge intent.

We cannot know what the defensive player is thinking. How do we KNOW that a catcher is really going to throw to retire the batter/runner? How do we read their minds?

WHAT IF we have a runner at third, or runners at second and third, less than 2 outs, tie game, bottom of the seventh, visitors lead by one. Is the catcher going to throw to retire the batter/runner...or is the defense better served by allowing her to reach first, setting up a force situation.

With deference to my mother, who passed down neither her mind reading nor the eyes in the back of her head, we don't know. We CAN'T know. Maybe they were just feinting a throw. A certain play that you just KNOW is interference at 16A is an unknowable phenomenon at 12B.

IMHO, we not only cannot guess (yes, that is a double negative :p ), we shall not guess. Yes, shall not. Not shouldn't or it's a bad idea. Shall not guess. Don't do it. Coaches can plead and parents can whine and whatever...and who cares.

Speaking ASA

Remember, the 3' lane and associated INT call had nothing to do with the play being made on the runner, but the defender's ability to receive the throw at 1B (8.2.E).

If there is no throw to receive, the rule is not in effect. And remember, if there is a throw, it must be a throw which a defender (not just F3) can actually catch in the vicinity of 1B.

For the record, I don't pretend to be an ASA authority figure on this forum. I chose my name simply because I live in NC, I call only ASA, and I'm an umpire. Anything I state is simply my opinion, my judgment, and quite often... I can be wrong. :)

And to restate my opinion with regards to this thread, if I'm going to call INT and call a runner out, I had better see something very concrete that tells me without the shadow of a doubt that the runner did something to interfere.

Excellent replies
 

Thanks for the excellent replies...you have explained clearly the difference between interference when a defensive player is making a fielding play and a catcher who may or may not be going to make a throw to first.