First base play Seattle Mariners

[greymule]

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

[Mike Ricketts]

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.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. Things get reversed when you go to the under side of the bus.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by greymule

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

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

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

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.

Nice. Thanks.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Not everything I wrote was wrong - A foot on the line IS considered in the lane.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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 [i]foot touching outside the lane.

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.

[Kaliix]

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

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.

[rainmaker]

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.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

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

[Zoochy]

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

[DG]

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

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.

"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?"

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

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.

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."

[JR12]

Originally Posted by Mike Ricketts

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.

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!