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?

Likely. If he comes out on the last step, he's going to be legal. If he runs ALL THE WAY out of the lane, he's going to get called for RLI as long as F3 is able to field a throw absent the interference.

Yes. By interpretation, BR is allowed to take his last step in fair territory so that he can touch the base.

Assuming, of course, that he doesn't do anything to intentionally interfere.

Unfortunately, this play was ruled incorrectly. In PRO and College baseball, the B/R can take any path he wishes to first base, however, he runs the risk of getting called for interference if he is outside the runner's lane on the last 45 feet to the base EXCEPT for his last step, stride or when he is in the immediate vicinity of the base, he is allowed to be outside the lane.

The fact that he was outside the entire way is NOT illegal and does not come into play UNLESS he interferes with a quality throw between the beginning of the 45 ft lane until a step, stride or immediate vicinity of 1st base. In the original play, the B/R gets hit by the throw too late (i.e, he was to close to the base) and thus is protected by the rule REGARDLESS of the path traveled for the first 87+ feet.

Don't get me wrong, if the call could go either way (ie. was B/R hit just before or after his final stride to the base) and he was running inside the whole time, then we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the fielder and call the interference. However, the B/R was just too close to 1st base at the time he got hit by throw and thus, should NOT have been called for interference (at PRO & NCAA levels).

This is not correct. The B/R must be in the lane all the way. Only then is he is entitled to leave the lane on his last stride and not be (potentially) guilty of unintentional INT.

Why let the written word get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

Not what Wendelstedt teaches (at least in their 2011 WUM):

"A runner that is running the entire distance outside of the running lane will not be protected if he interferes with a play at first base, even if it is in his last stride or step to the base. In order to be protected, this last step must be when he first exits the running lane."

And the WUM interp for a quality throw:

"Just because a fielder must leave the bag to catch the throw does not prohibit calling interference for running outside of the running lane. The determination is not whether the throw is true, or not, but whether it could still reasonably retire the runner. Fielders can position themselves in anywhere to field a throw as long as they are in the act of fielding."

If that is true, then I stand corrected for PRO ball interp... although I wonder why this is not specified in the MLB or MiLB Umpire manuals? That is not the way the rule was taught at JEAPU though???

Now you have me questioning NCAA interp. I have not heard the Wendelstedt interp being applied to NCAA but I guess it would also apply since NCAA changed their rule to match the PRO rule about 5 yrs ago????

I think that's also almost word-for-word in the NCAA rule book (but I don't have the time to look it up right now).

You have to read more into the NCAA wording to get the WUM interp:

"A.R. 1—If the batter-runner is outside the running lane and alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the throw, the batter-runner shall be called out. Exception—The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot running lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base and for the sole purpose
of touching first or attempting to avoid a tag. He may exit the running lane on his last stride or step if he has been running legally within the running lane up to that point.

NCAA 7-11-p

The runner must run within the lane when the ball is being fielded to first base, if he wants to be exempt from a potential interference call. If this were and NCAA game, he did not comply with 7-11-p; he has therefore violated the rule. He did not comply with the AR either; one must be within the lane to exit the lane in the immediate vicinity of the bag.

This play really seems like a clear cut case of interference. The BR was never within the lane, therefore he is not entitled to the protection accorded a runner exiting the lane as it was not possible for him to exit.

At an Evans clinic a few years ago I got the impression that he felt the RL rule was an anachronism. So a difference in how he would rule might be possible.

MY BAD :confused:
 

duplicate

My bad
 

This IS interference for PRO & NCAA too!

Sorry for misleading everyone - looks like if the runner wants to be protected for leaving the runner's lane in his last stride, he must be in the runner's lane the entire way to 1st base.

Don't RH batters, for the most part, tend to run inside the foul line on ground balls in the infield????

Thanks for mentioning that Jim - I knew I wasn't just "theorizing" like someone mentioned. That must have been how we were instructed back in the early 2000s but the rule has changed/evolved since then.... which I think is for the better anyways :)

They are taught to take the most direct route to 1B. It becomes a problem only when RLI comes into play and even then most times the throw is made inside/outside with no INT.

Yes, but that doesn't exonerate them from possible RL violations. That's why the BR only needs to be within the lane over the last half, to give him ample opportunity to get within the lane.

Thanks guys for setting me straight on this! Personally, I think the rule is for the better now than it was before because 9x out of 10, the B/R is INTENTIONALLY running inside the foul line to make it more difficult for the defense anyways.

With due respect to Jim (and he's due a LOT), I've inferred over the last 3-5 years that the rules committees at the highest levels of amateur and professional baseball, while finding his opinions worth considering, don't hold them in the same regard as "internet umpires" and his paying customers do, and certainly don't think he has the final word on anything.