Is a throw required for interference?

[Mad Mike]

FED Rule Set:

 

Situation #1) Bunted ball up first base line. Fielded by catcher. Catcher does not throw the ball, claims runner was out of the running lane and he did not want to hit the BR as he might get injured. If one assumes BR is definitely out of the lane, would you call "Interference-BR is out" or "That's Nothing"? 

 

NFHS Rule 8-4-1g notes a runner is out when he runs outside the three-foot running lane, while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.

 

I envision the "being fielded" portion to mean only if say F1, F2, or F3 are trying to field the batted ball near the first base foul line and the runner makes contact with the fielder the umpire ruled had protection from contact (and assuming the BR was not in the running lane).  This portion of the rule is not relevant to answer the question above; however, the "thrown to first base" portion of the rule indicates to me that a throw must be made in order to get interference. Let me know what you guys think.

 

Situation #2) Hit and Run in effect, R1 on First. Batter steps and swings at an outside pitch and does not make contact with the ball. His swing causes him to step over the plate blocking the catcher. There is no contact between the catcher and batter. Catcher does not throw to second base claiming the batter was blocking his throw. Is a throw required in order to call BI here?

 

NFHS Rule 7-5-(a thru d) address BI. The rule says at batter shall not (5) Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by: (a) leaning over home plate, (b) stepping out of the batter's box, © making any other movement, including backswing interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner......

 

Now if we have contact in Situation #2, it makes it easy for us to rule BI. However, we don't have that in this OP. If there is no throw, how can be judge whether the catcher was "attempting to play on a runner"? Was is your reasoning to call BI or not call BI in this situation? 

 

 

[UmpJM]

Mike,

 

In both cases, I would say you need at least an ATTEMPT by the fielder to throw.

 

If the umpire judges (regardless of any "claims" made by anyone) that the fielder aborted his throw due to the interference, then you can call the interference.

 

This would be highly unlikely on a RLI call (and is only applicable in FED), but possible, I guess; more common on a BI call.

 

JM

[noumpere]

I'll go ahead and claim that a throw is required on the RLI play -- even in FED.

 

On the BI play, a throw attempt is required.  F2 can't just look and say "the batter was in my way."

[johnnyg08]

As you describe it, F2 must make an attempt.

Read the rule again. The rule protects the first baseman more than it protects the catcher.

[GetItRight]

In both cases, an actual throw must be attempted in order for there to be a valid INT ruling.

[Kevin_K]

I disagree with the assertion that a throw must be made for BI

 

OBR and FED both indicate any action by the batter that hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play shall result in the batter being called out. Nowher does it indicate that a throw must actually be made.

 

 

[Jocko]

NOW HEAR THIS!!!!

ANGEL IS A STUD

THAT IS ALL

[Jocko]

I too disagree that there must be a throw. A pump fake and no throw, if it is judged that the throw wasn't made because of the batter, then you still have INT. But F2 has to do SOMETHING. Just standing there is defensive indifference. Hence the term "ATTEMPT" as mentioned by my esteemed colleagues in previous posts.

However, this video doesn't really back that up since there WAS a throw.

As far as situation 1 RLI, I need a throw. And a savvy F2 is gonna drill BR in the numbers if hes running out of the lane.

[johnnyg08]

Okay, situation 1…better make an attempt to throw the ball in my games.

Situation 2:

catcher must show some sort of attempt to retire the runner. Then abort his attempt due to the interference.

How else are you going to explain interference to the coach? Careful what end of the stick you grab here.

[JaxRolo]

To simply answer the OPs question a throw is not required.

BUT go out there and use common sense!

[Richvee]

I disagree with the assertion that a throw must be made for BI

 

OBR and FED both indicate any action by the batter that hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play shall result in the batter being called out. Nowher does it indicate that a throw must actually be made.

 

 

'>

[spiritump]

FED Rule Set:

 

Situation #1) Bunted ball up first base line. Fielded by catcher. Catcher does not throw the ball, claims runner was out of the running lane and he did not want to hit the BR as he might get injured. If one assumes BR is definitely out of the lane, would you call "Interference-BR is out" or "That's Nothing"? 

 

NFHS Rule 8-4-1g notes a runner is out when he runs outside the three-foot running lane, while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.

 

I envision the "being fielded" portion to mean only if say F1, F2, or F3 are trying to field the batted ball near the first base foul line and the runner makes contact with the fielder the umpire ruled had protection from contact (and assuming the BR was not in the running lane).  This portion of the rule is not relevant to answer the question above; however, the "thrown to first base" portion of the rule indicates to me that a throw must be made in order to get interference. Let me know what you guys think.

 

Situation #2) Hit and Run in effect, R1 on First. Batter steps and swings at an outside pitch and does not make contact with the ball. His swing causes him to step over the plate blocking the catcher. There is no contact between the catcher and batter. Catcher does not throw to second base claiming the batter was blocking his throw. Is a throw required in order to call BI here?

 

NFHS Rule 7-5-(a thru d) address BI. The rule says at batter shall not (5) Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by: (a) leaning over home plate, (b) stepping out of the batter's box, © making any other movement, including backswing interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner......

 

Now if we have contact in Situation #2, it makes it easy for us to rule BI. However, we don't have that in this OP. If there is no throw, how can be judge whether the catcher was "attempting to play on a runner"? Was is your reasoning to call BI or not call BI in this situation? 

 

 

Sit 1--has to be a throw to get a out for interference

 

Sit 2--no throw has to be made to have interference

[UmpJM]

To those on this thread leaning towards "...has to be an actual throw to get an RLI violation..." - if I'm reading correctly, that includes noumpere, Jocko, GetitRight, and spititump - how woud you rule in the following sitch?

 

FED Rules

R3 & R1, 1 out.

 

LHB hits a drag bunt inside the 1B line. F3 goes to field the bunt, and F1 goes to cover 1B.

 

F3 fields it about 15' shy of the bag and begins to throw an underhand toss to the covering F1 when the BR, running well to the fair side of the line, comes in-between him and F1 on his way to 1B, causing F3 to "double clutch" his toss and abandon it when he sees it's too late. You are confident he would have made the throw if the runner hadn't gotten in his way.

 

What's your call?

 

JM

[Lindsay]

Here's the key difference:

 

For interference, no throw is required.

For runner's lane interference (RLI), a throw/toss/lob/etc. is required.

 

Childress: "The running lane should enter an umpire's decision-making process only when the ball is being fielded to first from behind the runner." Being fielded to first means being thrown to first. The official FED interpretation (from Hopkins, who is the NFHS rules interpreter) requires the runner to be within the lane when two criteria are met: (1) the ball is fielded and (2) the ball is thrown from an area behind the runner.

 

To put it even more bluntly (also from Hopkins' official interpretation), "The umpire may not call interference if the catcher does not throw."

 

Succinctly, we have no RLI because we have no throw.

[johnnyg08]

Call RLI when there's no throw and see how fast you keep getting better games.  (Hint:  you'll be working JV for a while)

 

As Gil stated and cited, there had better be a throw attempt for Runner Lane Interference

[noumpere]

I disagree with the assertion that a throw must be made for BI

 

OBR and FED both indicate any action by the batter that hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play shall result in the batter being called out. Nowher does it indicate that a throw must actually be made.

 

 

'>

[noumpere]

 

 

What's your call?

 

JM

Safe.

 

Although to be honest, if there wasn't even a throw, I'm probably not "calling" anything. 

[zm1283]

I have no idea how FED came up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw. It is right up there at the top of their list of hair-brained ideas about rules. 

[UmpJM]

I have no idea how FED came up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw. It is right up there at the top of their list of hair-brained ideas about rules. 

 

zm,

 

Did they? (come up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw)

 

JM

[maven]

 

I have no idea how FED came up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw. It is right up there at the top of their list of hair-brained ideas about rules. 

 

zm,

 

Did they? (come up with the idea that you can have RLI with no throw)

 

JM

 

 

zm, I think John is suggesting that it is NOT correct to attribute this ruling to FED, and that a throw IS required to rule a BR out for RLI properly.

 

I think John is NOT suggesting that this ruling is correct but that someone other than FED came up with it.

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

Actually, I'm kind of "on the fence" - I think the hypothetical I posed above COULD be properly ruled RLI (solely in a FED game, of course) because it meets all the criteria published in the rule book for a violation. (I am not "married" to this position.)

 

Clearly, others thing an actual throw is an absolute requirement.

 

I'm curious about the source of the Hopkins cite made by @Gil: Owner - UEFL above.

 

JM

[maven]

IMO, people confuse the change FED makes from OBR.

 

In OBR, as we know, a "quality throw" is required before the BR can properly be called out for RLI. Without a quality throw, the BR has not interfered, according to interps of this rule.

 

FED wants to eliminate "quality" from that rule (pun intended), which is consequent to their general philosophy of making the rules easier to apply.

 

Some people hear that and mistakenly conclude that no throw at all is required. Of course, the rule (and case rulings) could be clearer on this point.

 

The other source of confusion is the different standard for BI: if F2 need not throw in order to get the batter for BI, why would he have to throw to get the BR for RLI?

 

I would say that the standard is different because the batter is RIGHT NEXT TO F2. He can interfere by preventing a throw. That's not the case with RLI, so the standard is different.

 

That's my 4¢ (2¢ for each issue).

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

That all makes sense to me.

 

However, what if there were an UNUSUAL RLI sitch where the BR was in a similar proximity to a fielder attempting to "...field the ball to 1B..." (who writes this stuff??). Such as in the hypothetical I posed above.

 

JM

[maven]

maven,

 

That all makes sense to me.

 

However, what if there were an UNUSUAL RLI sitch where the BR was in a similar proximity to a fielder attempting to "...field the ball to 1B..." (who writes this stuff??). Such as in the hypothetical I posed above.

 

JM

 

Not buying my evasion, huh? Tough customer!

 

If he is close enough to hinder the fielder's attempt to field the ball, then you might have garden variety runner INT on a batted ball. But in your hypothetical, the fielder has already gotten possession of the ball before the BR steps between him and 1B. So runner INT is off.

 

If he were simply between the fielder who is trying to make a throw and the base to which he would like to throw it, I've got nothing until he does throw it. If he does, then the provisions of RLI come into play.

 

Why require a throw? Think of it this way: at any other base, having a runner between the fielder and the base to which he's throwing — even a runner getting hit with a throw — is nothing (absent intent). Why would 1B be any different?

 

Well, it IS a bit different, because the BR has the privilege of overrunning the base, and because we have a foul line in play for fair/foul decisions. So we restrict the BR to the running lane and penalize his being out of it under certain conditions.

 

But there still must be a throw: we don't want to make it too easy to penalize the BR, so we make the violation depend on a throw (or "quality throw" in OBR). And FED doesn't want to make it too difficult to penalize the BR, which is why they don't require a "quality" throw (just a throw).

 

This balancing of offense and defense, with continual tweaks over the years, is part of what makes the rules so complex.

[Dash Riprock]

I disagree with the assertion that a throw must be made for BI

I disagree with the assertion that such assertion was made (in this thread).