Does the Angel's protest have a leg to stand on?

[Dakota]

They are apparently protesting the non-call of the running lane violation by Konerko.

I would have thought this would be a judgment call, and hence not protestable, but I'm just a fan as far as MLB rules go.

Does this protest even have a chance? (I mean technically, not politically.)

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAA@CWS: Scioscia argues call, protests game - Video | angels.com: Multimedia

[rbmartin]

Not a chance.

[Rich Ives]

F3 didn't have a prayer to catch the ball so how was he interfered with?

Remember - the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw.

[mbyron]

Agree, no chance for protest. Not a quality throw (one which would have retired the runner absent the interference).

[rbmartin]

It has been 26 years since last sucessful protest...don't hold your breath.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

It has been 26 years since last sucessful protest...don't hold your breath.

And it wasn't Tim McClelland's call either.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

F3 didn't have a prayer to catch the ball so how was he interfered with?

Remember - the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw.

Looks like he caught the ball. The fact that he had to dive off the bag to do it makess it not a quality throw and thus no RLI.

I am surprised that Mike would protest the game on a call in the first inning, that was indeed a judgment call.

[Rita C]

Not even close to being upheld.

Rita

[tmagan]

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

Seriously? As it is, umpires generally expect the runner to veer into fair territory a bit before the bag.

And remember, the foul line is part of the running lane and it is entirely in fair territory. So if the left foot is on the line, there should be no great need to veer.

Rita

Plus it's 45 ft! Not too much to ask.

[DG]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

Evans says, and it is generally understood, that the BR must step outside the runners lane to step on the bag. There is a difference between running a significant distance in fair territory, vs. just the last few feet to step on the bag. Nothing wrong with this rule.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

Looks like he caught the ball. The fact that he had to dive off the bag to do it makess it not a quality throw and thus no RLI.

I am surprised that Mike would protest the game on a call in the first inning, that was indeed a judgment call.

Mike should know better, since he played the position.

But he probably believed that any throw to first base that is off because of the BR's position outside the lane is cause for a RLI call. There are many who don't understand that the INT has to be with the fielder taking the throw, not with the fielder throwing it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mike Scioscia

'I see some of the things they're saying, but I also feel strongly in the stances that we took on it. If there's a trash can in the middle of the lane and you're driving and you veer off into a ditch and crash your car, the insurance company is going to say, 'Well, the trash can was in the middle of the road. But we're not going to pay because you're the one who veered off the road.'

''I think it's the same thing,'' Scioscia continued. ''In my opinion, there's no way from a fixed point of home plate to first base in a lane that a catcher has to throw a ball at a runner who's a solid 3 feet inside the lane on the grass can possibly not impair the ability of a catcher to make that throw. It's just physically impossible to say that it does not impair that. But, still, the judgment of the umpires is the second part of the equation and we'll live with that.''

1. Tell your driver not to swerve, and to hit the trash can next time. Oh, and is the trash can running? And who is the insurance company in this analogy? Same thing, really?

2. This is the mistake: it's not RLI to interfere with the throw, but with the catch.

3. Another BS thing: paraphrasing Scioscia, he said "I accept MLB's decision but I think they're wrong. They just want umpire error to remain part of the game." Either MLB made crap up because they don't understand the rule, or Scioscia is full of crap.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbyron

...Either MLB made crap up because they don't understand the rule, or Scioscia is full of crap.

Well, since Joe Torre apparently ruled on the protest, you may have six of one, half dozen of the other!

As I said in my opening post, this is a judgment call, not subject to protest. Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with.

[brainbrian]

Separate from the protest, I am confused how this is not runner interference. The runner seems to even have a foot on the grass. Of course the throw was not good, you can see the runner in the path and how Pujols has to stretch his glove out to get around the runner. And the catcher has come a step or two out from home plate also to try and get around the runner. That's why it was a bad throw.



What if the throw had hit the runner in the back? Any different ruling for that?