Running lane violation or game over?

[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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

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

Didn't say that.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

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

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

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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

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):

She runs outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane and, in the judgment
of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base (there must be a throw); however, the batter-runner may run outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. A runner is considered outside the running lane if either foot is completely outside the lane and in contact with the ground.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

Citation? Rule set?

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

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The runner's positioning causes and (sic) 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.

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.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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?

[CecilOne]

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

Nope.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

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

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