No interference was called on this play (and nobody argued).

The play the original poster asked about ended the top of the seventh in Thursday's Seattle v. Baltimore game. Here's a URL for the video of that half inning. The play ends the inning, and begins at about 5:05 into it.

http://tinyurl.com/3d4vc7

The announcer actually gives a pretty good explanation of running lane interference.

Yeah, apparently I'm reading a mirror image of the rule book. I've never noticed that there is a distorted view from under here.:confused: Things get reversed when you go to the under side of the bus.

The quality of the throw was so poor was the reason the interference wasn't called would be my guess judging from the sequences.

You're still wrong. Both feet have to be inside the running lane. Neither foot can be touching outside the lines. It wouldn't be a running lane if you are allowed to run outside of it even with a foot touching outside the lane.

Do you drive straddling the middle lane on the highway? How's that for candor?;)

Nice. Thanks. :)

How is what he said still wrong? I didn't read him saying running with one foot outside (to the left of) the foul line is not a violation.


Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: 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.”



Tim.

Seemed like a good call there. F3 in my judgment appeared to short arm the catch because he saw Ichiro running at him (in fair territory). Even after short arming the catch, he still got run into by Ichiro. Good call.

I know from the basketball board, that sometimes these threads go off on tangents, so I'm going to just re-iterate what I think is the answer to the original question, and see if I understand the sitch correctly.

The call was interference on Ichiro for either running outside the area where he's allowed to run, or for running into the first baseman, and thus the "non-catch" was because of the interference and Ichiro was out.

I'm not sure if I know whether the so called rule about running within a certain area is correct as quoted, or whether it applies in the OP.

Thanks for the answers.

From what I saw, Ichiro was out of the running lane. That is the three foot lane drawn from 45' to 1B. The batter-runner must have BOTH (;) )feet in that lane. He didn't, so he's out for interference. Running into F3, although this too could be INT, I think the call was based on the running lane violation not for the contact with F3.

talking about the N-HOOD call any one see the braves-philles game lasst night where ole Bobby did NOT get the N-HOOD call at second? WOW

That was a great call by the 2nd base umpire. I don't care about either team. so there!:D

A quality throw is required to rule interference on this play, but as always, it is umpires judgement.

The answer is simple and obvious. "The umpire working the game judged that Ichiro's actions interfered with the fielder's opportunity to make the play, regardless of what we might think from watching televsion."

That was the first rule that Jim Palmer ever got even close to right. I have heard him say numerous times that the tie goes to the runner. Makes me want to SCREAM!