Twins Interference @1st Base
 

Here's the video:
Video | MLB.com Multimedia

Love the announcers on this one.

Bailed out
 

In a Fed game where the quality of the throw is not considered, this is interference. In an MLB game, I don't think so. You have to be able to make a better 50 foot throw than that. Yes, BR did not have 2 feet running in the RL, but it wasn't like he was running 3 feet into fair territory and blocking the desired throwing path. F1 just made a poor throw and PU bailed him out.

But in a year when MLB umpires have missed some rules, I can understand why this call was made. :(

Bluehair,
What? That wasn't a good enough throw? It was easily catchable if it hadn't hit the runner, and that's all that is required regarding the throw.

No, I don't think it was good enough. If BR had been in the running lane and exited as he has the right to do, the throw would probably still have hit him. F1 had a clear (wide enough) throwing path, but didn't use it. Not a quality 50' throw.

Maybe, maybe not.

But if he had been in the lane until his last step (as required by rule), he might well have gotten the benefit of the doubt.

Interesting, exact same post on two different boards. Note too that the locations are different for ricka56 and bluehair.

So who is full of $hit here?

From Umpire.org
************************************************** *************

ricka56
Regular

http://www.umpire.org/vb/customavatars/111.gif

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bearded Clam, NJ
Posts: 163
Rep Power: 103


http://www.umpire.org/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Twins Interference @1st Base
<hr style="color:#3f6586; background-color:#3f6586" size="1"> In a Fed game where the quality of the throw is not considered, this is interference. In an MLB game, I don't think so. You have to be able to make a better 50 foot throw than that. Yes, BR did not have 2 feet running in the RL, but it wasn't like he was running 3 feet into fair territory and blocking the desired throwing path. F1 just made a poor throw and PU bailed him out.

But in a year when MLB umpires have missed some rules, I can understand why this call was made. http://www.umpire.org/vb/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif

No benefit needed. If you are in the running lane until your last step (or maybe two), then you are legal even if you leave the lane in that last step. If you're out of the lane the whole way, then you're still out of the lane in your last step.

And the throw was right to the bag -- that's going to be a "quality throw" at every level.

+1. F2 does not have to hit a spot.

Good call from my chair. BR out of lane, get plunked, he's out.

The quality of a throw doesn't mean too much if your not allowed to catch it because the BR was not where he was supposed to be.

Anonomity ??? :eek: he really doesn't live in Bearded Clam? :eek:
Same posts (same opinions) :eek: Nice work Dick Tracy.
If you must know, my real name is Raoul Duke.

Textbook RLI. Blue's contrary opinion only solidifies that.

I proved my point and that's all I wanted to do.

As a Twins fan (hard to be one these days), when I heard the local TV sports guy report on the call, I looked for the video of the play to see what all the controversy was about.

Yawn... good call.

And he doesn't have to. All he has to do is throw the ball such that F3 (or whoever's covering first) is able to take the throw at first base. You're putting the onus on the defense to make throws that will avoid batter-runners who are outside the lane.

Let's change the sitch just a bit. Let's say the B-R in this play was in the running lane the whole way, but on his last stride the ball hits him just like it did here. In the video, notice that the ball hits the runner just about the same time his foot is coming down on the bag. Does that change the call?