38 replies to this topic

[Haid D' Salaami]

The Angels are playing a game under protest...

BTW Thunderheads where are you at on this one?...

and what do you guys think about the ruling..look at rule 6.05k

[24sdad]

• 
  In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base (yes)
  
• 
  while the ball is being fielded to first base (yes)
  
• 
  he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line (yes)
  
• 
  and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base (Not even close)

Good call.

[johnnyg08]

This rule is interpreted to say that if he is illegal the entire way to first base then he's not protected within a step of the base.

[johnnyg08]

When I see this again it was not a quality throw. In order to have runner's lane interference, the throw has to be a quality throw.

[treydawgmt]

I think I mentioned in a post somewhere else here. At the MLB level, just peg the runner, makes it clear he interferes with a quality throw if he is that inside the running lane.

As it was, not a quality throw.

[johnnyg08]

That's where he will lost the protest. Did the Angels lose the game?

Let's consider this...should the PU take a different position on a play like this b/c of the intervening play, PU has no angle to call runner's lane interference even if there had been interference.

For learning purposes, could he have taken the play 3BLX, then adjusted to watch the play on the batter/runner down at first base?

[treydawgmt]

Yes, the Angles lost on a 10th inning walk off by Alex Rios. My Lieutenant made sure to rub it in this morning...

[JaxRolo]

When I see this again it was not a quality throw. In order to have runner's lane interference, the throw has to be a quality throw.

This was my first thought when I saw the video.

[cuban]

What's up with Paul's necklaces?

[JaxRolo]

What's up with Paul's necklaces?

Yeah and the white tshirt when the other guys have black.

[treydawgmt]

What's up with Paul's necklaces?

Yeah and the white tshirt when the other guys have black.

That was my other comment in the other thread this is working in. I *HATE* those necklaces, and no one else has them on... Looks stupid, sorry.

[JHSump]

Don't you know? Those necklaces regulate the "energy flow" and "electricity" in your body! So, when you are making decisions about INTs or EJs, these necklaces give you that extra "something" you need! It's all in the "Aqua Titanium" technology! Pick one up at your next tournament! (I've seen tables where they are on sale.)

But why settle for titanium? Go for Aqua Gold! You can get it in a lotion --- so you don't need those silly looking necklaces!

And you can trust these products to work --- this is a special "aqua" technology, not a snake "oil" technology.


(Wink wink. Which reminds me: where can I find the list of possible emoticons and how to enter them?)

[Haid D' Salaami]

That's where he will lost the protest. Did the Angels lose the game?

Let's consider this...should the PU take a different position on a play like this b/c of the intervening play, PU has no angle to call runner's lane interference even if there had been interference.

For learning purposes, could he have taken the play 3BLX, then adjusted to watch the play on the batter/runner down at first base?

MLB and PBUC want us to take this play from 3blx where he was....

[hbk314]

Kinda tough to argue the runner interfered with F3's ability to catch the throw when he caught the throw.

[johnnyg08]

MLB and PBUC want us to take this play from 3blx where he was....

I'm sure they do, but how do you get an angle for runner lane interference?

[UmpJM]

Under FED rules, this likely would have been an RLI violation.

Under OBR, protest denied.

No brainer.

JM

[Gil: Owner - UEFL]

Scioscia is misinterpreting the rule, while Barrett, Nauert & DeMuth know what they're talking about, something that should easily be supported by the League. Simply put, the RLI call under OBR requires interference with "the fielder taking the throw at first base." Konerko might have hindered catcher Iannetta's attempt, but Iannetta isn't protected by the RLI rule the way Pujols (1B) is. The "drilling the runner in the back" approach is generally a great way to generate this call if the runner is indeed illegally positioned, for the ball hitting the runner almost always (and very obviously) interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. And as hbk314 mentioned, the kicker is that Pujols caught the throw.

[noumpere]

This rule is interpreted to say that if he is illegal the entire way to first base then he's not protected within a step of the base.

True but completely irrelevant to the discussion and the play,

[Haid D' Salaami]

MLB and PBUC want us to take this play from 3blx where he was....

I'm sure they do, but how do you get an angle for runner lane interference?

Bend your head and look.. the runner crossing is more important... I know.. but 99% of the time F2 is gonna take the throw on the infield side and the is the best look at a pulled foot for the force.

[Jocko]

MLB and PBUC want us to take this play from 3blx where he was....

I'm sure they do, but how do you get an angle for runner lane interference?

Bend your head and look.. the runner crossing is more important... I know.. but 99% of the time F2 is gonna take the throw on the infield side and the is the best look at a pulled foot for the force.

What force?