Is this interference?

[Umpire]

I think that other knowledgable umpires have made some pretty good comments here. I wanted to take a minute to make a few general statements that apply to all rules and to all plays. First, the rules exist to create a fair balance, literally a fair playing field. Rules exist to prevent a wrong from occurring and to penalize offenders when they do occur. They are not designed to award or penalize above and beyond fair play. Second, not every "unfortunate" occurrence on the field requires invocation of a rule, and ultimately a penalty. The field is designed such that things can occur that aren't Kosher, but don't require a penalty. Third, umpire's need to keep the phantoms in the bag. Part of being a good umpire is knowing when to get involved and when to stay out of it. No umpire should be afraid to make a controversial call when necessary, but it's worse to make a call on something that didn't exist and it is not to make a call on something that didn't. It's one thing to miss something, it's quite another to image something. Lastly, rules don't exist in a vacuum. Rather, rules build on each other. Anyone looking to understand a rule must first start with the definitions relevant to the rule. They must understand the definition and its words and not merely brush over the definition. Here, you have to know who a batter-runner is, what the three-foot lane is and where it is, what interference is, what three-foot lane interference is, etc. These all build upon each other. You can't have three-foot lane interference if you don't have "regular" interference.

These are just some thoughts that might be helpful to keep in mind when approaching these situations.

 

[Umpireernie]

NFHS 8-2-5: "The B/R is out if she...runs outside the 3 foot line and, in the judgement of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base (there must be a throw)..." No mention of when it needs to happen. Seems to me that if the B/R "impedes, hinders, or confuses" by running outside (or inside, I assume) the 3 foot line, as long as there's a throw at some point in the play it's INT? Running that far inside the base path would be distracting at least, and could be interpreted as confusing IMO.

Honestly, no clue if it's technically correct - but I like the call lol!

Your quote of NFHS above actually points out that the call in wrong because the throw was successfully made and caught by the first baseman. The throw was not interfered with.

People try to make too much out of the running lane rule.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Your quote of NFHS above actually points out that the call in wrong because the throw was successfully made and caught by the first baseman. The throw was not interfered with.

People try to make too much out of the running lane rule.

I disagree - there is nothing in the rule that states that the throw must be unsuccessful for it to be considered interfered with. The words are "impedes, hinders, or confuses" not "causes the play to be unsuccessful."

 

[Comp]

How can you possibly interfere with a throw that was in fact caught?

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

How can you possibly interfere with a throw that was in fact caught?

Watch a football game.

 

[Comp]

OK, you got me I guess we will penalize 10 yards.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

OK, you got me I guess we will penalize 10 yards.

Spot foul, ball placed at the point of infraction...

 

[Umpire]

How can you possibly interfere with a throw that was in fact caught?

Generally speaking, you can still interfere with a caught ball. The question isn't whether a catch was prevented. That view is far too narrow.

 

[BretMan]

I disagree - there is nothing in the rule that states that the throw must be unsuccessful for it to be considered interfered with. The words are "impedes, hinders, or confuses" not "causes the play to be unsuccessful."

On the play in the video, how exactly would you say the throw was interfered with?

(Remember, "the throw" refers to the action of the fielder making teh throw or the thrown ball itself. The fielder who is actually receiving the throw is something else and covered by a different part of the rule.)

When the ball left F5's hand, the runner was still about 30 feet away from the base. I don't see how the runner's presence or position affected that throw.

The runner didn't touch the ball (or the ball touch the runner). The ball was able to travel on whatever path F5 sent it on without interuption.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

On the play in the video, how exactly would you say the throw was interfered with?

(Remember, "the throw" refers to the action of the fielder making teh throw or the thrown ball itself. The fielder who is actually receiving the throw is something else and covered by a different part of the rule.)

When the ball left F5's hand, the runner was still about 30 feet away from the base. I don't see how the runner's presence or position affected that throw.

The runner didn't touch the ball (or the ball touch the runner). The ball was able to travel on whatever path F5 sent it on without interuption.

"Impedes, hinders, or confuses." IMO, and it is just that, an opinion: the B/R was so far inside the line that F3 could see her coming from a direction that was not "normal," which fits my definition of 'confuses' and even 'hinders'.

On top of that, there is nothing in the rule that says interference has to affect the throw, just that there needs to be one. In fact, it states clearly "...interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base..." Nothing to do with the throw at all.