runner int in game one

[OzUmp]

I am surprised this has not been discussed yet. In top 5th inning I had int. not on the throw necessarily but with f3s ability to catch the ball. It was Welke again.

Incidentally I was banned from the other site I believe for questioning the ability of the series umpires and even whether or not one umpire even deserved to be working the series. I mean the guy is late reading plays. He looks like he is waving off aircraft with his safe mechanic. He watches the ball on pop ups instead of the fielder. I trust that the moderators on this site are not so high and mighty and quick with the censorship.

[johnnyg08]

my understanding of the rule is that it only applies to F3's ability to field the ball

[JJ]

I, too, looked at the replay of this and wasn't convinced it WASN'T interference. It would have been a pretty easy sell, considering where the runner was running (BOTH feet inside fair territory) and where the throw was coming from. It was the umpire's judgment whether the throw was mishandled because of the runner's actions or because of the throw itself not being a decent enough throw. Obviously, the umpire thought the throw was bad on it's own merit and the runner had nothing to do with the first baseman not being able to catch the ball.
Still....

JJ

[NickG]

It was a TERRIBLE call. The runner was not only fully outside the running lane, he even took a subtle zag (or was it a zig) toward the fielder approching the ball. The throw to first was clearly affected by the runner's position (it needed to be looped over the runner's left shoulder). You could argue that the ball, as thrown, should have been caught, but in my view, under the circumstances (that is, runner out of the running lane -- see 6.05(j)), this is a clear-cut call.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by NickG

It was a TERRIBLE call. The runner was not only fully outside the running lane, he even took a subtle zag (or was it a zig) toward the fielder approching the ball. The throw to first was clearly affected by the runner's position (it needed to be looped over the runner's left shoulder). You could argue that the ball, as thrown, should have been caught, but in my view, under the circumstances (that is, runner out of the running lane -- see 6.05(j)), this is a clear-cut call.

Interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw. If the runner blocked a catchable throw it's interference. But if the throw got there and the fielder dropped it - tough.

[NickG]

Your interpretation of the rule is correct, of course, but I don't agree with the application. In my view, the position of B-R FULLY in fair territory caused an errant throw; then, the errant nature of the throw contributed to F3 failing to field it correctly. I see the infractious position of B-R contributing directly to inability of F3 to field the ball. Hence, interference, B-R out, dead ball.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by NickG

Your interpretation of the rule is correct, of course, but I don't agree with the application. In my view, the position of B-R FULLY in fair territory caused an errant throw; then, the errant nature of the throw contributed to F3 failing to field it correctly. I see the infractious position of B-R contributing directly to inability of F3 to field the ball. Hence, interference, B-R out, dead ball.

I can see where you're coming from; it's hard, though, to rule the throw was errant when it hit F3 in the glove.

[OzUmp]

Originally Posted by OzUmp

I am surprised this has not been discussed yet. In top 5th inning I had int. not on the throw necessarily but with f3s ability to catch the ball. It was Welke again.

Incidentally I was banned from the other site I believe for questioning the ability of the series umpires and even whether or not one umpire even deserved to be working the series. I mean the guy is late reading plays. He looks like he is waving off aircraft with his safe mechanic. He watches the ball on pop ups instead of the fielder. I trust that the moderators on this site are not so high and mighty and quick with the censorship.

In my mind BR clearly int. with the f3s ability to catch the ball. When is the last time you saw a competent f3 miss such an easy catch. Not what one would call a quality throw, but should have been easily handled.

I don't think the ML guys are distinguishing themselves in this post season. As I alluded to in the OP Danley (I will call him by name now) is having a shocker. Add to the rest of his stuff ups
the BS he pulled early in game 2 ringing up the batter and then appealing it to 1st. On the other forum I asked why Danley was even working the series. I added that it certainly was not merit cause I had seen him work a few games in the past. Now apparently the high and mighty administrators on that forum (starts with a AB**) took this as a rascist comment on my part and quickly deleated my post and barred me from that forum. Who is laughing now? ME thats who.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by OzUmp

I am surprised this has not been discussed yet. In top 5th inning I had int. not on the throw necessarily but with f3s ability to catch the ball. It was Welke again.

Incidentally I was banned from the other site I believe for questioning the ability of the series umpires and even whether or not one umpire even deserved to be working the series. I mean the guy is late reading plays. He looks like he is waving off aircraft with his safe mechanic. He watches the ball on pop ups instead of the fielder. I trust that the moderators on this site are not so high and mighty and quick with the censorship.

I noticed both an incredibly imperious and thin-skinned bunch over at that site.

The truth shall set you free for good over there. They need to turn pro.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OzUmp

Not what one would call a quality throw, but should have been easily handled.

"Quality throw" is EXACTLY the expression they use in pro school to determine whether to call running lane interference. Without a "quality throw," you pass on the interference.

That said, the usual criterion of "quality" is "had a chance to retire the runner," and the throw on that play certainly did.

I would guess that if you asked the crew, they'd say that F3 misplayed the throw, and that it wasn't due to the runner being in fair territory. That's plausible (unless you're a fanboy).

[PeteBooth]

The Interference call you are referring to IMO is one of the most inconsistent calls in MLB.

Remember the Cleveland Indians NY Yankess playoff series years back in which Chuck Knoblock went ballistic.

The point is you could have a different result the next time this play happens. It boils down to judgement. It's the judgement of the umpire in interpreting the rule and how he sees it.

Also, the officials do not have time to reflect as we do here on the internet. Many have looked at the play many times to come to a conclusion. The officials do not have that luxory as the play happens in a heartbeat.

If the officials look at tapes afterwards perhaps they would have ruled differently given that they now had time to review .


It's funny you mention Welke because he was the one involved with the tag or no tag play on Veritek which prompted many a discussion.

All in all IMO a bad year for officials not only our bretheren in MLB but Football officials have also been taking a beating lately.

Perhaps it's time for Billion Dollar industries to start investing time and resources in their recruitment process to ensure that indeed the BEST officials are on the diamond or grid-iron.

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

F3 clanked it. Period, point blank, to use Pacman Jones' expression. The throw was not even close to being off-line and was very catchable. I think Peña just booted and easy catch.