First base play Seattle Mariners
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You could not be more wrong.

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.

Be patient. You might be surprised. :D

Ha ! ...Funny ! :)

Was it similar to this play?

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/253...0447755_rs.jpg
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/237...6120117_rs.jpg
http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/230...6344437_rs.jpg
http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/241...4919631_rs.jpg

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


Tim.

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.:)

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!