No Throw - No Interference?

[WestMichBlue]

For years we have followed a "No Throw - No Interference" caveat when a defender fails to throw because an offensive player is in their path. The common explanation is that we can not guess why a player did not throw. If there is no throw, then there is no play. If no play, then no interference.

Lately I have been seeing some cracks in that position. Especially with respect to a batter getting into the path of a catcher wanting to throw to 3B. Both Irish and Steve M posted on eteamz that an attempt to throw (something visible - maybe striding, maybe moving the arm forward) was enough for them to see a play, and thus call interference.

In a way, that makes some sense. If we can see a play developing, and then there is no throw, we can then assume that the presence of the O player interfered with the play.

But are we not opening a can of worms? What if the runner is too fast, or F6 is slow getting to position - and the catcher decides it is too late to throw? Would we be calling a runner out for simply being too good?

Suppose F3 fields a ground ball and attempts to throw to 2B to force R1 - who is in her throwing lane. F3 stops the throw and turns to tag 1B, but is too late. Is someone out?

The real kicker is the 3' lane violation. RH batter bunts and is running from well inside the foul line at an angle toward the outside of 1B. Just as F1 or F2 attempt to throw, the "big" B-R crosses their path and they can't see the diminutive F4 covering 1B. So the throw is aborted and F1 (F2) steps aside to find a clear throwing lane and it is too late. No throw means the catch by the fielder at 1B would never be interfered with - so no interference?

Your opinions.

WMB

[NCASAUmp]

Well, let's take a look at the actual, relevant wording of the ASA rules...

8-7-J (2 and 3)

When the runner interferes:
2. With a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or
3. With a thrown ball.

Also, 8-7-P

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

Effect: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Note: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

When I read those rules, I see "attempting" and "opportunity," and not "making" a throw. I have to see something tangible, something concrete in their body language that says, "I'd like to throw this ball." If I see them pump their arm, something clearly say, "I'm going to make a play on this next guy," and they have a chance, I'll call INT if I see that an offensive player takes away that chance.

If I see a possible case of INT, a few things I consider:
1 - CAN they make the play? If there's no play to be made, it may not be INT. Benefit of the doubt, in my mind, goes towards yes, they might be able - they have to be given the opportunity.
2 - Do I see something from the fielder that shows they were ready to make a play? While it doesn't necessarily qualify the INT call, it certainly helps your explanation to the offensive coach - "Coach, I saw him reach back, ready to make a throw, and your batter-runner was still 20' from 1B."
3 - Did it HINDER? Just because the ball hits someone doesn't always mean it hindered the defense's ability to make the play.

I had a play where a runner was heading home, and the ball was poorly thrown from the left-center fielder past F5. F1 was attempting to back up F5, but he missed it as well. It struck the on-deck batter on his foot, popped up into the air, and was caught cleanly by F1, who threw to F2 for a very close play at home. The runner was called safe, but the defense wanted an INT call. I said to the offensive captain, "I can't call INT if it didn't hinder your team's ability to make the play. If anything, the on-deck batter HELPED your pitcher, because that ball would have kept on going further towards the backstop (another 15' or so)."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

For years we have followed a "No Throw - No Interference" caveat when a defender fails to throw because an offensive player is in their path. The common explanation is that we can not guess why a player did not throw. If there is no throw, then there is no play. If no play, then no interference.

Lately I have been seeing some cracks in that position. Especially with respect to a batter getting into the path of a catcher wanting to throw to 3B. Both Irish and Steve M posted on eteamz that an attempt to throw (something visible - maybe striding, maybe moving the arm forward) was enough for them to see a play, and thus call interference.

In a way, that makes some sense. If we can see a play developing, and then there is no throw, we can then assume that the presence of the O player interfered with the play.

But are we not opening a can of worms? What if the runner is too fast, or F6 is slow getting to position - and the catcher decides it is too late to throw? Would we be calling a runner out for simply being too good?

Speaking ASA

This is why we get the big bucks, to see the play, recognize the play and make the appropriate call. The definition of a play contains the defense's attempt to retire a runner or batter-runner. Common sense and appropriate observation should be able to tell you if there was a runner available to be retired. However, to me the benefit of doubt would swing to the defense.

In the scenario on eteamz to which you referred, the batter stepped out of the box and took a practice swing. This comes back to the offense being aware of the play at hand. Should not the batter be responsible for insuring they create no interference? Play for a batter doesn't miraculously end the moment she can no longer hit the ball. She is part of the team and should be responsible for her actions.

Suppose F3 fields a ground ball and attempts to throw to 2B to force R1 - who is in her throwing lane. F3 stops the throw and turns to tag 1B, but is too late. Is someone out?

You have now left the apple orchard and entered the orange grove. Is this even a valid question? There are no "throwing lanes" and R1 is permitted to runner ANYWHERE they please as long as it is not to avoid a tag. You know that, so where is there even any possiblity that this could lead to INT?

The real kicker is the 3' lane violation. RH batter bunts and is running from well inside the foul line at an angle toward the outside of 1B. Just as F1 or F2 attempt to throw, the "big" B-R crosses their path and they can't see the diminutive F4 covering 1B. So the throw is aborted and F1 (F2) steps aside to find a clear throwing lane and it is too late. No throw means the catch by the fielder at 1B would never be interfered with - so no interference?

Maybe that is because the BR didn't violate any rule. Remember, this rule pertains to interfering with a defender's ability to receive a throw at 1B. As noted in the Umpire's Manual, the course of the game often causes the offense and defense to cross paths to the point of possible collisions. Would you expect the RHB be required to run into the LHB batter's box and then turn left on their way to 1B? That would more likely cause a collision with the catcher, which is not a good thing.

If the defender chooses to not throw the ball, that is their choice. As a catcher, I always threw a direct line in fair territory and never held the ball. However, two things in my favor, 1) I always knew where I needed to be to get a clean throw and 2) often reminded the umpire that if the occasion arose, I expect an INT call if the ball hit the runner outside the lane.

I do not believe the rules were meant to aide less talented players.

Your opinions.

You asked !!