MLB/High School Rule

[RPW]

JV game in Texas.  Dropped third strike, catcher keeps ball in front of him, steps to the inside part of diamond, and starts to make the throw to first baseman....batter runner is clearly running inside the 45 foot lane.  Instead of trying to make a play, he just points at the BR, who reaches first base.  Two man crew talk it over...and declare the BR out.  I thought a play had to be made before calling interference.  Correct call?  Different call for different levels?

[aaluck]

“he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or”

Excerpt From: NFHS. “2018 NFHS Baseball Rules Book.”

I would not require a throw, just as I don't if I have interference at the plate by a batter on a steal.  If it is clear to me it effected the play that's enough, for me. I think this is especially true at the HS level when a lot of the rules are safety issues. Throw and hit batter in face or head?

As PU there are two things that are EASY to see from the plate. Batter interference and running out of the lane.

[noumpere]

19 minutes ago, aaluck said:

I would not require a throw,

You should.  NFHS is clear on this: (emphasis added):

SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g

[aaluck]

20 minutes ago, noumpere said:

F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g

Maybe I should, but this is EXACTLY why I don't.

In a typical play this highlighted section REQUIRES the fielder to throw around the runner (which completely contradicts the reason for the rule--provide a clear path to throw), perhaps into the outfield.  So.... kid throws the ball over the runner (out of the lane) and into the outfield, or off the helmet into the dugout, and then umpire makes no call for interference.  Now we have a kid on second, maybe runs scored on a play that should have been an out and no advance.

I fully agree that you are correct in the rule cited. But the result of that rule can, and sometimes does, lead to an advantage by the offending player. If I'm first baseline extended (or even moving up the line) I KNOW if he is interfering (out of the lane) or not, I don't need a throw to tell me that.

[beerguy55]

14 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Maybe I should, but this is EXACTLY why I don't.

In a typical play this highlighted section REQUIRES the fielder to throw around the runner (which completely contradicts the reason for the rule--provide a clear path to throw), perhaps into the outfield.  So.... kid throws the ball over the runner (out of the lane) and into the outfield, or off the helmet into the dugout, and then umpire makes no call for interference.  Now we have a kid on second, maybe runs scored on a play that should have been an out and no advance.

I fully agree that you are correct in the rule cited. But the result of that rule can, and sometimes does, lead to an advantage by the offending player. If I'm first baseline extended (or even moving up the line) I KNOW if he is interfering (out of the lane) or not, I don't need a throw to tell me that.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but the rule is in fact protecting the fielder who is receiving the throw, not the fielder making the throw.   No throw to receive, nothing to protect, nothing to penalize.

But yes, as worded and enforced, it can force a catcher to hit a runner square in the back to get the call...or, forces a catcher to throw the ball, throwing it away in the process, and risk an umpire ruling that it was just a bad throw and not interference.  

I hate the rule/interpretation, but it is what it is.  And if you called my team for RLI in this scenario I'd protest, and I'd win.

[noumpere]

33 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Maybe I should, but this is EXACTLY why I don't.

In a typical play this highlighted section REQUIRES the fielder to throw around the runner (which completely contradicts the reason for the rule--provide a clear path to throw), perhaps into the outfield.  So.... kid throws the ball over the runner (out of the lane) and into the outfield, or off the helmet into the dugout, and then umpire makes no call for interference.  Now we have a kid on second, maybe runs scored on a play that should have been an out and no advance.

I fully agree that you are correct in the rule cited. But the result of that rule can, and sometimes does, lead to an advantage by the offending player. If I'm first baseline extended (or even moving up the line) I KNOW if he is interfering (out of the lane) or not, I don't need a throw to tell me that.

All codes require a throw on this play.  OBR and NCAA require a "quality throw."  Umpires should not MSU.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

Maybe I should, but this is EXACTLY why I don't.

In a typical play this highlighted section REQUIRES the fielder to throw around the runner (which completely contradicts the reason for the rule--provide a clear path to throw), perhaps into the outfield.  So.... kid throws the ball over the runner (out of the lane) and into the outfield, or off the helmet into the dugout, and then umpire makes no call for interference.  Now we have a kid on second, maybe runs scored on a play that should have been an out and no advance.

I fully agree that you are correct in the rule cited. But the result of that rule can, and sometimes does, lead to an advantage by the offending player. If I'm first baseline extended (or even moving up the line) I KNOW if he is interfering (out of the lane) or not, I don't need a throw to tell me that.

If the catcher throws over F3 because the umpire judges he was trying to throw over the offending runner the umpire should call RLI in FED:

"2004 SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)"

Otherwise, don't MSU. You need a throw.
 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

Maybe I should, but this is EXACTLY why I don't.

In a typical play this highlighted section REQUIRES the fielder to throw around the runner (which completely contradicts the reason for the rule--provide a clear path to throw), perhaps into the outfield.  So.... kid throws the ball over the runner (out of the lane) and into the outfield, or off the helmet into the dugout, and then umpire makes no call for interference.  Now we have a kid on second, maybe runs scored on a play that should have been an out and no advance.

I fully agree that you are correct in the rule cited. But the result of that rule can, and sometimes does, lead to an advantage by the offending player. If I'm first baseline extended (or even moving up the line) I KNOW if he is interfering (out of the lane) or not, I don't need a throw to tell me that.

I don't see the logic here. Another umpire in a different game doesn't call RLI when he should on a bad throw, so you're going to make up $-it to over compensate in your game and call RLI when, by rule, there was none? 

[maven]

For the OP: we require a throw because RLI is defined in terms of the fielder taking the throw, and if there's no throw it's not possible to hinder a fielder taking a throw. No hindrance = no INT.

We teach that RLI has 3 necessary elements:

1. Runner with at least 1 foot completely out of the lane, AND
2. A [quality, for OBR] throw, AND
3. Hindrance with the fielder taking the throw at 1B

#1 is obvious; #2 is covered in this thread.

#3 is required to rule out the situation where the BR is running inside (say), F2/F3 set up outside, and F2 makes an errant throw. In that case, the runner's being out of the lane did not hinder the fielder taking the throw, so no RLI.