Running lane interference

[Sayhey]

Alan Porter is working the plate. Country Joe is working 1st base. Bunt down the 1st base line

Catcher gloves the fair ball and throws poorly,

Ball goes down right field line and batter/runner makes it to 2nd base. Wait, Country Joe West has called interference on the batter/runner.

Batter/runner was running on the inside, out of the lane. 1st baseman was calling for the throw on the inside. Catcher threw a little high and over the bag. The throw was poor and was not going to be caught by the 1st baseman no matter what the batter/runner did. Alan Porter got up the line well and signaled fair on the bunt. Camera angles did not allow me to see Alan Porter after this. The camera did show Joe West looking at Alan Porter

Then it shows Joe West looking at the ball rolling down the right field line. Then it shows Joe West calling time and interference on the batter/runner

I do not think Alan Porter ever called interference

My question is this: how accurate does the catcher's throw need to be to get interference?

6.05K says the batter/runner is out if touched by the throw and causes interference or hinders the fielder trying to field the throw. Assume he is out of the lane. In this game the A's were visiting the Marlins. Around June 28. And the batter/runner was inside the diamond and out of the lane with both feet the entire distance from home to 1st base. Of course it is judgement whether the batter/runner prevented the successful fielding of the thrown ball. What guidelines do we use? I was surprised this was called interference. I was surprised the field umpire card it. I think the plate umpire and 1st base umpire disagreed. I do not think the batter/runner caused the poor throw

The throw should have been 3 feet further inside

And at the chest rather than above a tall 1st baseman's reach. Let's follow Major Dave's advice and think for ourselves. Did Joe West blow this call? Is Joe being very strict?

[Richvee]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v34148085

[Sayhey]

Thanks for the video. Awesome technology

Jim Evans says the throw must be "a quality throw". Every umpire must decide what quality means. I would say catchable. That throw was not catchable. Does the batter/ runner cause the bad throw? Is it interference because of the runner's position? Is Alan Porter happy Joe West was there to bail him out or does he disagree with Country Joe and hope he retires as soon as possible? How can you interfere with a 1st baseman gloving a throw when the throw was uncatchable?

[Jimurray]

Looks like a FED interp. Never seen it called like that in MLB. But RLI is a crapshoot. They take their chances and pay the consequences.

[Jimurray]

Thanks for the video. Awesome technology

Jim Evans says the throw must be "a quality throw". Every umpire must decide what quality means. I would say catchable. That throw was not catchable. Does the batter/ runner cause the bad throw? Is it interference because of the runner's position? Is Alan Porter happy Joe West was there to bail him out or does he disagree with Country Joe and hope he retires as soon as possible? How can you interfere with a 1st baseman gloving a throw when the throw was uncatchable?

Wendelstedt says a true throw is not required, only one that could reasonably retire the runner. I don't think this qualifies under Evans or Wendelstedt.

[Richvee]

I'm not sure Porter didn't call it. Announcers said Porter called him out and during the replay they said West was looking in to Porter because "he knows it's his call"....Then again, we all know how reliable announcer's accounts of situations are. 

[Sayhey]

I use to sit on my grandmas porch and watch the fireworks after an A's win. We were big A's fans

Bumper stickers and caps and lots of A 's promotions. I love the A's and the Giants.

Having said all that,Ray Fossee, the A's announcer is very hard on umpires. His criticism is constant . He is also ignorant. Ray can screw up any rule.

[Replacematt]

I think that throw may have been catchable. It looked as if F3 couldn't tell when to time his reach/jump and ended up with alligator arms. I'm probably getting an out on this one, benefit of the doubt going to the defense.

[basejester]

Borderline, but with the benefit of replay, I have nothing.  

[maven]

I think that throw may have been catchable. It looked as if F3 couldn't tell when to time his reach/jump and ended up with alligator arms. I'm probably getting an out on this one, benefit of the doubt going to the defense.

 

Yeah, that's where I am, too.

[Cav]

OBR-E2 (F3 was never going to handle that throw); and,

NFHS-Time!  That's interference.  You, you're out.

[BigUmpire]

If that right foot is on the grass most of the way you are out!

[Sayhey]

Thank you for the replies. Any idea what Harry means by a throw that can reasonably retire the batter/runner?

[basejester]

Thank you for the replies. Any idea what Harry means by a throw that can reasonably retire the batter/runner?

If the BR weren't out of the lane, would the fielder at first base be able to catch the ball and make an out? If yes; then RLI, out.

Maybe I'm missing the question.

[Sayhey]

Thanks. That is helpful. You got the question right and gave a good answer. The 1st baseman may have been screened by the batter/runner and unable to see the ball for a moment.

Still, if the catcher throws accurately to his target the runner is out. The 1st baseman was set up on the inside and the throw was over the bag and a little high. In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

[basejester]

Still, if the catcher throws accurately to his target the runner is out. The 1st baseman was set up on the inside and the throw was over the bag and a little high. In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

Yes.

Any throw that would retire a runner is good enough for protection from RLI.

[noumpere]

 In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

If F3 wasn't screened, would he have been likely to catch the throw and retire the BR?  If so, INT.  If not, no INT.

 

Since it judgement, the OP can be interpreted different ways (it's close to the borderline)

[maven]

 

 In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

If F3 wasn't screened, would he have been likely to catch the throw and retire the BR?  If so, INT.  If not, no INT.

 

Since it judgement, the OP can be interpreted different ways (it's close to the borderline)

 

 

It is also possible to vary the "quality" you expect from the throw according to how egregious the runner's violation is. The runner who is on the grass in fair the whole way to 1B drops the quality bar for me, and perhaps for the umpires in the posted play, too.

[Replacematt]

In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

If F3 wasn't screened, would he have been likely to catch the throw and retire the BR?  If so, INT.  If not, no INT.

 

Since it judgement, the OP can be interpreted different ways (it's close to the borderline)

Is "likely" the proper threshold?

[noumpere]

 

 

In your opinion, if the 1st baseman is screened by the runner on a poor throw, is it interference?

If F3 wasn't screened, would he have been likely to catch the throw and retire the BR?  If so, INT.  If not, no INT.

 

Since it judgement, the OP can be interpreted different ways (it's close to the borderline)

Is "likely" the proper threshold?

 

According to a post above (#5), "Wendelstedt says a true throw is not required, only one that could reasonably retire the runner"

 

I think in this instance "likely" and "reasonably retire" are synonyms.

[Sayhey]

Maven, you continue to provide deep insight. Thanks. Some umpires quote a rule. Maybe they are busy and time is tight. You give thoughtful tips

We vary our strike zone and use advantage /disadvantage, why not vary the quality throw definition depending on circumstances.

Major Dave would be happy. He encouraged us to be independent thinkers. The throw in the example came from the inside and crossed over to the bag. That crossover may have caused the 1st baseman to lose sight of the ball. Maybe that is enough to call interference. Maybe Joe West does exactly as you say, being strict on this call because the batter/runner was running on the inside from the plate

[Sayhey]

At the risk of beating the horse to death- if Harry says a true throw is not required and only a throw that is "likely" to retire the runner or in other words, " reasonably retire" the runner, how can an untrue throw be considered likely or reasonable.

A poor throw is not likely to retire a runner.

Many times we make players take responsibilities for their actions. The catcher's throw in this case was quite a distance from the inside target. Is he responsible? The batter/ runner was running on the inside from the plate

We know he is responsible. Do we use Maven's idea and hold the runner super responsible and the catcher barely responsible because of the runners hyper violation?