Running lane violation or game over?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Then you have interference. We were not there. Until you said where the throw was coming from, I think we were all having trouble seeing how a BR that far into fair territory could interfere with a quality throw. Now that we know where it was coming from, it makes a lot more sense. Assuming number 4 above AND a quality throw (F3 could reasonably be assumed to have made the catch had BR not been where he/she was), you have INT.

I'm having a difficult time seeing this as a quality throw. It seems to me that if the throw was coming from foul territory on third base side and sailed over the right shoulder of the batter runner, then the 1st baseman would have had to go to her left to catch the ball. How far up the 3rd base line was the catcher when she threw the ball? How far out into fair territory was the batter runner? If the ball didn't hit the batter-runner how did she interfere with the fielders ability to catch the ball? Was the fielder's vision obscured? Still not seeing this as interference...yet.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by umpire george

...4. Based on angle of throw and position of batter runner defender was, in my judgement, interefered with.

After this statement, I'm curious as to what you (if in fact, you were the umpire) called.

After all of the descriptions, it's still a bit fuzzy to me, but you were there and we were not. All I can say is that all of the elements seem to be present to have an interference call, but without actually seeing the play, it all comes down to the judgement of the umpire on the field.

[CecilOne]

If you say "Based on angle of throw and position of batter runner defender was, in my judgement, interefered with" then it was INT as long as the BR had reached he lane, so why the question?


All, visualize a throw from the 3rd side of HP, over a BR who is in FAIR territory, but low enough to be caught by the fielder except for the view blocked by the BR. I think that is what the OP is about. Then, if the BR had reached 30' and blocked the view of the fielder or contacted the ball, I say INT.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by xtreamump

I have to assume double first base, & I have to assume drop third strike F-2 is making the throw from foul territory. Assuming all of that the BR is helping the defense. Game Over.

I take it that with all your assumptions you are assuming that this was not interference.

Then why "Game Over"?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I take it that with all your assumptions you are assuming that this was not interference.

Then why "Game Over"?

The other assumption is the runner scoring from 3rd. I assume.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

I'm having a difficult time seeing this as a quality throw. It seems to me that if the throw was coming from foul territory on third base side and sailed over the right shoulder of the batter runner, then the 1st baseman would have had to go to her left to catch the ball. How far up the 3rd base line was the catcher when she threw the ball? How far out into fair territory was the batter runner? If the ball didn't hit the batter-runner how did she interfere with the fielders ability to catch the ball? Was the fielder's vision obscured? Still not seeing this as interference...yet.

Granted, I wasn't there... but it sounds like the runner was significantly out into fair territory - in a near direct line between the catcher (foul up the 3BL) and F3. Picture the catcher about 6 feet away from home, and the runner halfway up the line about 3 feet from home and this could easily be INT.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I take it that with all your assumptions you are assuming that this was not interference.

Then why "Game Over"?

Because the game winning run scored.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by umpire george

1. Yes, runner was at least 30 feet down baseline.
2. No, double 1st. base was not in use.
3. Throw came from foul territory on 3rd. base side.
4. Based on angle of throw and position of batter runner defender was, in my judgement, interefered with.

Okay, no problem with your judgment, but from an angle from the 3B side, how did the ball end up in right field?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, no problem with your judgment, but from an angle from the 3B side, how did the ball end up in right field?

My question as well. Perhaps he meant right field foul territory ... but this post has been lacking in info from the start, so I'm afraid to assume.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

My question as well. Perhaps he meant right field foul territory ... but this post has been lacking in info from the start, so I'm afraid to assume.

Why should you be different?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Because the game winning run scored.

I guess that the first post does imply that...which I had conveniently forgot about by the time I'd read through another twenty posts.

[DRJ1960]

Making sure I'm clear...
The runner was "just running"... no waving or shouting etc &
The throw never touched the runner???

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Making sure I'm clear...
The runner was "just running"... no waving or shouting etc &
The throw never touched the runner???

Either way, the BR would have hindered the receiving fielder.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Making sure I'm clear...
The runner was "just running"... no waving or shouting etc &
The throw never touched the runner???

The play involves a running lane violation, not interefering with a thrown ball.

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The play involves a running lane violation, not interefering with a thrown ball.

So, you're saying that the accuracy or quality of a throw is irrelevant... if ANY throw is made the ump is required to call interference (running lane violation)?

asking... not arguing