First base play Seattle Mariners

[rainmaker]

Did anyone see the Mariners game last night? We had a question about the play where the first baseman apparently didn't catch the ball, but the runner was ruled out. It was at the end of an inning. Can anyone explain the rule that was used for that out? I'm not going to argue about it. I am a basketball ref that just wants to explain the rule to my 9 year old son.

[Rcichon]

Neighborhood call.

Just a guess without having seen said call.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

Neighborhood call.

Just a guess without having seen said call.

Doubtful.

The "neighborhood play" which is losing favor in the majors, still requires a catch.

Which inning?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Did anyone see the Mariners game last night? We had a question about the play where the first baseman apparently didn't catch the ball, but the runner was ruled out. It was at the end of an inning. Can anyone explain the rule that was used for that out? I'm not going to argue about it. I am a basketball ref that just wants to explain the rule to my 9 year old son.

Can you provide any more information, such as where the ball was hit, who threw it, was it a throw or a fly ball, etc.? It would be helpful in determining why an out was called. Thanks.

[Mike Ricketts]

I was watching the game, and assume the play in question was the one where Ichiro was called out for running lane interference.

The applicable rule says that the batter, when running the last half of the distance between home and first, cannot interfere with the fielder receiving a throw by running outside the running lane. The running lane's left edge is the foul line. A separate line is laid down to mark the right edge. The lane is three feet wide.

The logic behind the rule is that the batter could bunt the ball and, as he runs to first base, watch where the first baseman (or whoever is covering first) is setting up to receive the throw from the vicinity of home plate. The batter then could move into the way of the throw and block it, or the fielder's vision, or otherwise make it difficult for the fielder to catch the throw for an out.

On the play in question, Ichiro hit a chopper that was fielded by the pitcher, if I recall correctly. As he ran to first base, at least one foot was landing in fair territory, so he was outside the running lane. The pitcher's throw was wide right, and sailed past the first baseman.

One of the nuances of the running lane rule is that it doesn't protect the fielder who fields the ball and makes the throw to first. It protects the fielder attempting to receive the throw at first. However, when you explain the rule to your 9 year old son, be sure to leave this part out. Otherwise, he might then ask, "But, why, why, why, on the play we saw, was Ichiro called out when his running outside the lane didn't have anything to do with the pitcher making a bad throw -- and that was why the first baseman couldn't catch it?" If he does ask that question, you'll have to look to someone else for an answer, because I don't have one.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

One of the nuances of the running lane rule is that it doesn't protect the fielder who fields the ball and makes the throw to first base. It protects the fielder attempting to receive the throw at first. However, when you explain the rule to your 9 year old, be sure to leave this part out. Otherwise, he then might ask, "But, why, why, why, on the play we saw, was Ichiro called out when his running outside the lane didn't have anything to do with the pitcher making a bad throw -- and that was why the first baseman couldn't catch it?" If he asks you that question, you'll have to ask someone else for an answer, because I don't have one.

I have an explanation (I didn't see the play). If the play was as you described, it is simply the umpire's judgment if the runner hindered F3's ability to catch the ball. Simple as that.

Again, I didn't see the play, so perhaps something else was going on here.

[ManInBlue]

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

Everything you wrote is wrong.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

You could not be more wrong.

[ManInBlue]

I just love your candor, Steven. Not everything I wrote was wrong - A foot on the line IS considered in the lane. Please be more accurate with your comments.

You both are correct. I am wrong. Don't have a Hank's idea in hell where I came up with that. Serious brain fart on my part. Sorry about that.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You could not be more wrong.

Be patient. You might be surprised.

[mick]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Be patient. You might be surprised.

Ha ! ...Funny !

[greymule]

Was it similar to this play?

[BigUmp56]

The images as I see them don't show interference.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I agree. It looks like a really bad throw. The runner did not cause the pitcher to throw wildly. It looks like the umpire is about to get plastered though.

Hey Darien, back under the bus again.