Didn't say that.

There has to be hindrance of the fielder on a throw which the fielder could catch and have a play.

If the defensive player alters her throw as a result of the runner being out of the lane and that complicates the ability of the defender on 1st base to catch the throw, that's interference also.

:cool:I think that is the subject of endless debate...:cool:

The most common example is probably when F2 throws over the runner (who is outside the lane) and the throw is out of reach of the player covering 1st and the ball goes into right field.

Some will call that Running lane interference...... many will not.

Here is the exact wording of the NFHS rule (from 2011):

Citation? Rule set?

The only "stick and ball" game I'm aware of that has that interpretation is high school baseball.

The runner's positioning causes and altered throw, which affects the fielder taking the throw at 1st base. It's not as technically literal as many umpires make it out to be.

That would be like saying that when the catcher drills the BR 35 feet up the base line, BR didn't affect the fielder's ability to take the throw at 1st base. What affected the play was the fact that the catcher threw the ball into BR's back.

The only difference in logic might be how an umpire can interpret what the catcher is doing and why they are doing it (e.g., looping the ball over the runner). Well, that's pretty obvious. Most catchers attempt to throw hard, online throws. That's how you get runners out; not by chucking the ball 20 feet into the air on a rainbow and hoping it lands in the 1st baseman's glove.

It goes right back to the concept of a "quality throw". Just because the batter-runner got hit, it doesn't mean that the throw was directed at the fielder taking it and reasonably catchable. If the B/R is 35 feet up the line, but the throw is angled across the line and away from the fielder (perhaps aimed at the B/R in an attempt to get a cheap out), rather that up the line (directed at a fielder at first base), then it wouldn't be a quality throw and it wouldn't be interference.

But your point isn't obvious. If F2 loops one over the BR and the fielder, such that it can't possibly be caught, are you saying that would be interference because the catcher "altered her throw"? Or, are you saying that it obviously isn't?

We are not about sympathetic judges.
We are about literally objective umpires.

xtreamump
 

Lets call this game over. If this play happens make the call. Now some of you bullies start a thread that we can learn something. I like this site, some of you guys are rough. 13 years & I have had a 3 foot lane violation once. (COME ON MAN)

Bullies?

My, but you must have a delicate constitution.

Seriously...who in this thread is being "bullied"? :confused:

xtreamump
 

I knew it would be you to respond. "PLAY BALL" If we don't agree with one of the three of you guys all you have to say is something about a double negative. Some Umpire's are on here to talk to Brother Umpire's not hear how bad we are at spelling. I am man enough to move on, there are 3 of you guys that will have something to say. I thought that I would get into this Forum and find some good Topix. Show me something.

Please, sir, could you point me to a thread where I have ever commented about your spelling or grammar? Any thread? Ever?

Or, for that matter, find one example where I have ever "bullied" or berated another poster?

You seem to be ticked off about...something? For the life of me I'm not sure what it is.

If you think BretMan is a bully, you either haven't really been reading his posts, or you must have some serious sensitivity issues.

He is anything but.

Understand that you're not arguing and just asking. Check the rule - specifically the part that says, "quality throw".

Nope.