RLI

[jpperez14]

Had the ball went off BR shoulder/back, gone left or right to F3, or overthrown F3, would anyone else get RLI here. 

 

I know the throw retired the runner, but had it not.

 

[lawump]

It is close, but yes.  It appeared that he intentionally ran out of the running lane (not that intent is required).  I say "close" because he ALMOST ran out of the lane after the ball had been thrown and passed him.  I had to slow down the video a couple of times to see where the ball was located when the runner veered to his right.

It would have been a tough call.

Edited November 19, 2015 by lawump

[ElkOil]

I would, yes.

[smckin]

I would

[Jimurray]

Easy call if ball hits runner outside of lane. Tough call to judge if overthrow was quality throw or not.

[Richvee]

Would have been a blast if it hit him and they called RLI...Reynolds can't stand the rule...Thinks it should be abolished. . If nothing else, it would have been "entertaining" listening to those two knuckleheads try to explain to America what just happened. 

[grayhawk]

The funny part of this one is that the BR was out of the lane on the outside.  We are constantly barraged by announcers that runners have to be in fair territory to touch the base.  It's obvious that many times (such as this one), runners pick where they run with the specific goal of interfering with the throw.  Inside or outside - whatever suits their needs.

[jpperez14]

The funny part of this one is that the BR was out of the lane on the outside.  We are constantly barraged by announcers that runners have to be in fair territory to touch the base.  It's obvious that many times (such as this one), runners pick where they run with the specific goal of interfering with the throw.  Inside or outside - whatever suits their needs.

I love when I hear that they have to be in fair territory to touch the base. Technically, you could run down the entire baseline with your left foot on the line and be able to touch 1st, on the right hand side, with just your left foot and never have to be on fair side of the line.

[KenBAZ]

Jim Evans also says this is a rule we can do without. We don't offer the defense this type of protection fom unintentional interference at any other base. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

The OP would be INT at any base, if it affected the play, absent a read of a tag and a jink to avoid. So in the OP, removing the RL rule which I kind of agree with Mr. Evans, would anyone have INT. I have heard Mr. Evans espouse that the rule is an anachronism.

[ricka56]

The OP would be INT at any base, if it affected the play, absent a read of a tag and a jink to avoid. So in the OP, removing the RL rule which I kind of agree with Mr. Evans, would anyone have INT. I have heard Mr. Evans espouse that the rule is an anachronism.

I don't understand why some think that this rule's time has passed. BRs still try to interfere (cheat) and this rule was written to penalize those cheaters. Without the RLI rule, none of them would ever be penalized.

Why do y'all think that this rule isn't necessary ? 

[KenBAZ]

It's left over from when 1st and 3rd were in foul territory. Why have special protection for 1st? The defense is protected from deliberate attempts to interfere at every base already. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Larry in TN]

Why have special protection for 1st?

Because it was the BR who put the ball in the position which then allow him to interfere with the throw?

 

[KenBAZ]

Without RLI a BR deliberately interfering with a play being made on them would still be penalized, just as they are now at 2nd or 3rd. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

Without RLI a BR deliberately interfering with a play being made on them would still be penalized, just as they are now at 2nd or 3rd. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Just like with R1 or R2, it would never be called.
Even Reggie Jackson's obvious R1 interference wasn't called.