Good call, Joe West, on that Running Lane Interference! Typical Yankee trying to cheat his way on base. :D:D

I don't care either way in terms of who wins, but the throw came from the foul side and the fielder was set up to take the throw from that side. Of course it's a different game, but in softball, the lanes are reversed in that situation. If you see the fielder set up on the foul side, you're <i>supposed</i> to run inside the line (and thus not in the regular lane).

If I had the energy, I'd check to see whether J/R addresses that situation.

If the throw came from the foul side, how could it have gone that far to the left of the B-R on such a straight line? It would seem the laws of physics preclude that.

Oh, that last one was close. Looked out to me.

It would not be game five without some bangers...

But of course. ;)

Agreed!
 

I'm not a fan of the yankees, but that was a good call.

The runner also knew what he was doing as you could see him start to flinch as he saw F3 reach inside the bag for the ball, so he knew the throw was going to either hit him or barely miss etc.,

Thanks
David

It doesn't, because in baseball the lane is the lane.

Hey Rich....

Are you getting ready for basketball? Are you registered for the SWOA 3-Crew Basketball Mechanics clinic? My partners and I are.....maybe we'll see you Nov. 4 if I can find the bowling lane. (Do you think they'll let us bring our bowling balls?)

wl

Getting ready for hoops? Yes, I've cut back on the beer dramatically the past few weeks.

Not certain on the clinic. We work a lot of 3-man, but I know the WIAA is going to want a formal clinic at some point before they'll assign us a state tourney (which is probably at least a few years down the road, if ever).

In other words, I don't know yet. :)

You gotta be freaking kidding me. That was a HORRIBLE call on the running lane interference. When the ball was thrown, Cano was running on the foul line. His last three steps, before he hit first, were all on the line and the ball got to first about the same time he did, maybe a fraction earlier.

I am a Yankee fan, but this call in no way caused them to lose. The Yankees couldn't pitch, and couldn't hit with runners in scoring position.

But I went back and replayed (on Tivo) the play numerous times and Cano was running on the line. Granted he was just touching, but he was on the line. West called a great game, but was 10 or 15 feet off the line in foul territory and didn't have the best angle on this play. I am surprised that West bailed out the defense on this play.

I didn't affect the game, but I thought it was a bad call.

Typical Yankee?? Give it a rest,PLEASE....

You need to get your Tivo fixed. Mine shows Cano clearly in fair territory the whole way.

By the way, how can his last three steps all be on the line? Did he hop on one foot?

Excellent call, and I'm in New York.

(Wait till next year. Our new coach will lead us back to the promised land.)

I hate the Yankees.... and I thought it was an awful call. It is generally accepted that since the bag is in the infield (and not in the lane), that the last step will have to come back into fair territory (out of the lane) to hit the bag. Cano was running essentially on the line (whatever previous poster said about hopping is absurd... watch it again - right foot IN the lane, left foot on the line, right foot on the right side of the line, left foot barely touching the line, right foot on the middle of the line... POP in the back, then left foot inside the lane, at the bag) and was hit right as his final step was taking him outside the lane. BAD call. But I was happy to see it. No tears for the Yank-Me's here.

Obviously sarcasm and a sense of humor are two things you lack. :rolleyes:

Huh??? No human being is going to run with BOTH his feet on the line. It was obvious Cano was in fair territory, outside the line. Why is everyone only focusing on his reaching first base, too? If a B-R runs out of the running lane and hinders the defense's throw or receipt of said throw, it's interference. Odss decrease, of course, the worse the throw is to first, but in this scenario, that didn't come into play.

FWIW, I wanted the Yankees to win, but I believe West made the correct call.

Think of a capital N

Cano was running on the left line.

Molina was at the bottom of the right line

Erstad was at the top of the rignt line.

The throw was along the slanted line.

I had actually thought of that, Rich, but based on the original poster's description, it didn't sound like what he described could have happened.

OK, which line is the foul line/left side of the running lane? :D

Have you never watched a football game? Players routinely run with both feet a mere inch from the sideline for many steps. It is very possible to do that.

We are focusing on Cano reaching first base because he didn't hinder the throw. The throw was true and could have been caught. The reason Earstad didn't catch the throw was because Cano was in his line of sight. Cano being in his line of sight (screening him from the ball) is not interference if Cano is in the running lane. To not be in the running lane, he has to have one or both feet clearly outside the lane. If his feet are touching the line, his is considered in the lane.

The last three steps before the bag, when the throw was in the air, Cano was running with both feet on the line. It is my understanding of the rule that if he is outside the running lane when he interferes with the catch, it is interference.

I don't see how an umpire can call interference with a catch before the ball is in the air. When the ball was in the air, Cano was running on the line.

So interference shouldn't have been called. Unless I am misinterpreting the rule somehow.

If one wants to argue that Cano was outside the line, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I am positive about what I saw on the replays and he was running on the line. IMHO

Dancing on a football sideline is easy to notice. Cano wasn't doing that. His left foot was clearly out of the running lane. In fact, he wasn't completely in the lane throughout his entire journey to first. Also, it appeared West didn't make the call until well after the throw was made, so I don't think he was too eager about it.

If that is what you believe then you didn't watch the replay very well and we are going to have to just disagree.

I ran slowly through the play, from the best angle, atleast 10 times. I wanted to see when the throw was made and where Cano was, in relation to the running lane, when the throw was in the air. After stopping the footage and analyzing Canos steps frame by frame, it was clear that his foot was in contact with the foul line when the ball was in the air. He did start out in fair territory, but was running on the foul line when the throw was made.

I wish I had the capability to import the footage onto my computer so that I could show you pictures of his feet in contact with the line during the time in question.

Short of that though, we presumably saw the same footage and saw two different things. Such is life...

Here is text of actual rule:
7.09 is is interference by a batter or runner when:
(k) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that "lane" but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot "lane" or on the lines marking the "lane.

It was clear from the replay that both of Cano's feet were to the left of the line the last half of the distance to 1B. Looked like a great call to be...and gutsy.

Mike

Please stop taking whatever you're taking.

"No human being is going to run with BOTH his feet on the line."

Obviously you neither A) looked at this replay, nor B) have actually watched someone's feet as they run. MOST human beings, when sprinting, will have both of their feet (when the foot hits the ground) nearly directly under their center of gravity - ie: in a straight line. If they don't, they will lose balance or turn.

Football players running down the sideline only have to dance if they are out of balance (falling toward the sideline). I, for one, have run next to hundreds of players down a sideline, where said runner is not "dancing" - and seen both feet hitting the ground nearly in a straight line.

Further - if you would bother to look at the freakin' replay instead of just argue, you would see that he was on a bit of a slant at the end of the run. 5 steps before the ball hit him, his right foot was in the lane, then his left foot was in the lane on the left line, then his RIGHT foot was in the lane on the left line, then his LEFT foot was on the left side of the left line, but still on the line. As his right foot lands squarely on the line, and his left is about to step toward the base (OUTSIDE the lines, I'll add), the ball arrives.

i guess nobodoy saw where erstad was setting up taking the throw, he was actually in foul territory and cano would of ran him right over if he was running in the running lane. horrible call based on all factors not just the runner. erstad was blocking the whole path the runner normally takes on any given play at first base. out of over 20 post not one person has mentioned this, everyone is focused solely on the runner. that was bull****.

huh?

I agree, I agree, I agree....

Yeah, what he said! :)

Put a sock in it, kiddie. I looked at the replay in several different manners. I'm not "arguing." I just stated what I saw (and what apparently many others saw, according to many comments I heard on today's sports radio shows).

You lost. get over it, and out of here.

good one. took a lot of thinking.

No. No you didn't. You stated that no human being is going to run with both his feet on the line. Which is nonsense.

And PLEASE don't lump THIS group in with the general populus that have no idea what the umpire SHOULD have been looking for in this case. I ask you to PLEASE go watch it again. At no point after the throw was made, until AFTER the supposed interference, did Cano's foot hit completely on the fair side of the line.

(And in case you think I'm just a mindless Yank-Me fan (I know... redundant), I LOVE that they screwed up this call.

The "GOLDEN" Replay We've Been Waiting For...
 

I say good call.

You make your own "frame-by-frame" judgement as you wish (click the link below).

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...news&fext=.jsp

I think its quite obvious his right foot is not entirely on the line when he was hit with the ball.

I finally just saw the replay. Anyway you look at, anyway you dice it, and anyway you slice it from every possible angle, that is an out and the correct call was made.

Joe West made the correct call. And another thing, for those of you who have very much disagreed with Joe West making this call in this kind of game or situation, that is why Joe West is where he is at with his career as an MLB umpire.

Good umpires step and make big calls in BIG situations. Those are the kind of people MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and the NCAA want working at the top levels and working the playoff rounds, people that have big brass sets of b**** to make the big tough calls in big games.

Good Job Joe West!!

I've kind of been waiting for this post. No matter what replay I look at, I can't see a possible way that the BR was not out. Seems the only possible grounds for criticizing this play would be to talk about West's mechanics. I'm much more familiar with basketball mechanics than baseball, so I don't know what proper mechanics are with a ball behind the plate like that. If I had to guess, I'd think that call is all about angle not distance -- and West was plainly moving in the one reply on espn.com to get an up the line angle, so if my guess is right there's nothing to criticize about mechanics.

The BR on the play had two choices: (1) run in the lane, or (2) don't run in the lane and hope. He chose number 2. He chose incorrectly. He's out.

As for whether that was an "appropriate" time and place to make the call, is that even something worth talking about? What could possibly be more inappropriate than incorrectly loading the bases in a deciding playoff game?

Even if his right foot plowed the foul line chalk up, it takes both feet to be inside the lane, or on the line. One in and one out is how it looked to me. Good Call.

See Braves@Astros Game3 thread where there is discussion about the balk call, the announcers who were clueless, but not much about whether it was a correct call.

Contrast to this thread where there is a lot of discussion about whether correct or not, with what looks like a near split in opinion.

I vote for bad call on the balk (although it did not make any difference since it was ball 4) and good call on the running lane violation, and yes I know these are major league umpires... so don't bother to remind me.

Well ...
 

Don't know who the other guys are but I think I made it quite clear that I watched the game, the replays, and the rest of the action and I thought it was a very good call.

Like it or not, F1 did balk and the umpire made the correct call by rule.

Must have missed my post.

Thanks
David

Re: Well ...
 

What can I say? I saw a stop, live and on tape replay.

My next door neighbor is a physicist and mathematician, and his analysis shows that your observation is incorrect. :D

Re: The
 

Everyone knows I'm a Yankee fan - and have been for nearly 60 years.

Three plays:

1. A-Rod is out for slapping the ball out of the fielder's glove. Umpire: Joe West (plate) Last year

2. Runner is safe at second on a force because Cano was not in contact with the base when in control of the ball. Umpire: Joe West (second)

3. Cano is out for being out of the running lane. Umpire: Joe West (plate)

Does any of that prove:

Joe doesn't like Cano?
Joe doesn't like Latinos?
Joe doesn't like the Yankees?
Joe doesn't like rule violations?

Could all four be correct? After all, they do call him Cowboy Joe West.

Remember, Joe has to make his decisions in real time, without benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

My take? Three out of three is pretty damned good.

1. The A-Rod call: Piece of cake if you have <i>cojones</i>. Obvious, unsportsmanlike action. And probably dumb as well. On A-Rod's part, I mean.

2. The Cano force play. We teach that an amateur umpire, who doesn't have to deal with instant replays from five different angles, should call the neighborhood play on force outs <i>if the first play is part of a double play</i>. But we also teach that if the first play is the only chance the defense has for an out, then the fielder must have control of the ball while touching the base. Joe clearly saw Cano off the bag, and he clearly called the runner safe, and the instant reply clearly backed him up, Joe Morgan's opinion notwithstanding.

3. Here's what I saw - and I've run the play many times - and here's what I know:

(a) Cano was NEVER completely inside the lane. Evans says such a runner is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to wheter he was in or out of the lane.

(b ) The throw looks pretty good, so the catcher is absolved from blame.

(c) Someone said that Cano HAD to veer toward the base because the base is in fair territory, but the running lane is in foul ground. True, but wrong. A runner in the lane must be allowed (except in the NCAA) to leave the lane to touch the base. He leaves the lane by veering to his LEFT. Cano, not being in the lane, had to veer toward his RIGHT to touch first. Look at the video: When he moves to his right, he PROVES he wasn't in the lane.

(d) The catcher was not very far to the left of the plate. The rule that says the runner may not run to the right of the lane is there for plays where the ball runs away from the catcher in foul territory and up the line. For example: If the catcher had been ten or fifteen feet away from the plate in foul territory, Cano's position vis a vis the throw would have been immaterial.

(e) Joe was <i>out of position</i>. The video shows him to the left of the line of the catcher's throw. Technically, he's supposed to be directly on the foul line. Since the throw got away slightly to foul territory to his right, a quick glance should have been enough to let him know he would not interfere by being on the first base foul line, slightly extended.

Based on the facts:

Joe was right every time.

Conclusion:

I hate Joe West.

With the small screen and no ability to frame by frame advance the video, the clip of the play is pretty useless to try and figure out the proper call.

Even in the clip you see of Cano, you guys can really see ground between Cano's feet and the line. I honestly don't think you can. When I frame by framed it on a 32" TV, I couldn't.

Oh well, that is fun of debating calls...

I promised to stop commenting, but after seeing the clip, and seeing others use this clip as evidence, I have to comment.

Not having the ability to freeze frame and zoom on the FIRST portion of the clip makes it impossible to get anything from this clip. The slowmo doesn't show his feet.

At home, right after the call, on a 63 inch HD TV, I replayed this frame by frame, and I stand by my commentary that he was not completely out of the lane until AFTER the ball went by. He hit chalk on 3 consecutive steps, but was not OUTSIDE the lane on any of those 3 steps.

Freeze Frame VERSUS Replay-Replay-Replay
 

I don't quite understand why you can't obtain the information required from the video. It is (in a nutshell) what you would acquire from watching live television and slow motion replays. That is the same replay that was shown on television.

On that note, is it necessary for a frame by frame analysis in super slow motion when you can obtain identical information by replaying the video numerous times? I don't see the difference, but there may be one.

Does he know anything about baseball?

He's probably as qualified as Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver :D

It's hard to tell, but did the ball hit Cano on the throw?