Last night Dana Demuth made a call as the plate umpire. He called David Justice out for being outside the running lane. The first base coach for the Yankees protested the call on the basis that Justice was already on the bag when the ball hit him. Replay showed this to be true. Dana's arguement was Justice was not in the lane at the time the ball was thrown. In my mind the call was made correctly. I do not work in the professional book (OBR) ever. In amateur ball I would claim that the correct call was made. Penny for your thoughts.

There are two parts to the rule, in summary:
1- BR is outside the running lane and
2- BR interferes with the play.
It appeared to me that the first baseman was kind of frozen as BR approached first. That may have been because he could not make a play on the ball since BR was between him and the ball. The fact that BR was on the base at the time he was touched by the ball is of no interest. As long as the umpire felt that BR interfered, in any way, he is out. Judgement call and end of discussion.

My penny's worth.

<i> Originally posted by ump24 </i>

<b> Last night Dana Demuth made a call as the plate umpire. He called David Justice out for being outside the running lane. The first base coach for the Yankees protested the call on the basis that Justice was already on the bag when the ball hit him. Replay showed this to be true. Dana's arguement was Justice was not in the lane at the time the ball was thrown. In my mind the call was made correctly. I do not work in the professional book (OBR) ever. In amateur ball I would claim that the correct call was made. Penny for your thoughts. </b>

The problem with this call is that it is not applied on a consistent basis even at the PRO level. In the ACLS series a few yrs. back (Yanks vs. Indians) we had a no call on a similar type play except B1 would definitely have been out -no question about it and yet no call was made.

Knoblauch during "live" action went ballistic over the non call.

Now during last night's game we have a runner outside the lane who was safe but violated the rule and the PU made the out call. It would be interesting if we could get <i> inside the minds of the other umpires </i> to see how many of them would have called interference on this play.

My gut tells me that we would have many different calls on this type of play depending upon the PU assigned. So IMO that's the main reason for the confusion and protests over this call.

Pete Booth

Two passages from JEA rule 7.09(k) come into play:
<ul>The rule serves two purposes: <b>(1) It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and <u>intentionally crashing</u> into the player covering first base</b>, and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first.

[snip]

An allowance should be made for the batter-runner to step inside the foul line as he reaches the immediate vicinity of first base; otherwise, the base is not readily accessible for him to touch since the runner's lane runs adjacent and past the base in foul territory. <b>However, a runner who has advanced the entire distance from home plate to first in fair territory making no effort to run within the lane <u>is not extended the same leniency</u> as the runner who runs in the lane as required and then cuts into fair territory near the base to touch it. </b>[all emphasis is mine]</ul>
Now, it is apparent the fielder did not reach for this ball as Justice was approaching, and if he had, he would have had his a$$ run over. While I think Justice would not have beaten the ball had the fielder reached for it, that is just my judgement. I would expect all to agree it would have at least been a very close play. It was the illegal position of Justice, however, that prevented that play from occurring. He should receive NO benefit of doubt regarding that call.

BUT the real question is:
<ul>Do you require the fielder to get his a$$ run over to <u>prove</u> the interference to you?</ul>
I don't think so. Elsewhere in the JEA, Evans states the acts "palpably designed" to interfere should be ruled as interference. Consistent with the philosophy here, he states that the runner in fair territory the entire basepath should not be given the leniency as one merely stepping to the base as he reaches it. Doesn't that really tell you that the intent of the runner in fair territory throughout his approach IS to interfere? He has shown total disregard for the running lane rule---one we all learn at a young age.

I don't think the fielder need risk injury and possibly his career to receive the proper call. I also feel the same toward amateurs.

Justice interefered.......and received his justice.
Kudos to Demuth for making the proper, gutsy call.

Just my opinion,

Freix