Running lane violation

[jmkupka]

Please settle a debate... I say the running lane rule is in place to protect the fielder at 1B when receiving a normally catchable thrown ball. It does not give the thrower leeway to throw a bad ball simply because throwing a good one would possibly hit the BR.

My take is, if the throw would have been catchable (even with an extreme stretch, with foot on the bag) had BR not been there at all, there is a case for INT.

If F2 airmails it, or throws wide (wider than F3's stretch), I don't necessarily have INT.

Let me know if I'm dead wrong, so I can fix my game.

[BretMan]

That is the interpretation as I understand it. In order for the throw to be interfered with, it must be a "quality throw". That is, one that has a reasonable chance of being fielded by the defender at first base. As far as the "reasonable-ness" of it being caught, give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

If the throw gets airmailed over first base into right field, that's not a quality throw, thus the opportunity to make an out was not interfered with.

The only game I'm aware of that calls interference on a "non-quality" throw (a bad throw) is FED baseball. They have a ruling that if the batter-runner's presense out of the running lane causes the bad throw (really...how would the umpire know that for sure...) then it is interference. FED softball does not have this interpretation.

[AtlUmpSteve]

You didn't specify a rule set, so the wording varies, by ......

MOST rule sets declare it interference to hinder the fielder who would receive the throw, NOT to block the thrower from a direct line to throw. With that wording, it should be clear that a runner hasn't interfered if the throw is one that couldn't be caught.

[MD Longhorn]

Depends on the rule set. Bret is dead on.