Jump to content
Gfoley4

Anyone have RLI here?

Recommended Posts


Register or Sign In to remove these ads

wrong angle, can't tell, but it does indeed appear that the BR was inside the line ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this foot in just inside the foul line with about a step to the bag, is that close enough that he no longer needs to be in the RL?

 

Quote

Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment (Rule 6.05(k ) Comment): The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.

 

 

RLI.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In my judgement" (thank you NCAA), RLI.  If you watch, the BR runs the entire 90 feet between home and first in fair territory, making the last step before the bag irrelevant.  Because of this, the first baseman is hindered from fielding a "quality" throw from the catcher.  Immediate dead ball, all un-retired runners return to their bases occupied at the time of the interference.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2017 at 10:06 AM, stkjock said:

Seems like this foot in just inside the foul line with about a step to the bag, is that close enough that he no longer needs to be in the RL?

 

 

 

RLI.jpg

From the video it looks like the BR runs the entire way in fair territory, so he was never in the lane to begin with. The rule states that the BR can leave the lane for the sole purpose of touching first base, but in this play the BR never was in the lane. This is a tough call, though. I think his foot is on or close to the line. I can't tell if the PU did this or not, but this is a good time to say, "That's nothing!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 6:57 PM, HuskerUmp22 said:

From the video it looks like the BR runs the entire way in fair territory, so he was never in the lane to begin with. The rule states that the BR can leave the lane for the sole purpose of touching first base, but in this play the BR never was in the lane. This is a tough call, though. I think his foot is on or close to the line. I can't tell if the PU did this or not, but this is a good time to say, "That's nothing!" 

Comment begins with "...looks like the BR runs the entire way in fair territory."

Comment ends with "...this is a good time to say 'That's nothing!'"   

:blink: :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at 6:43 he's on the grass. At 6:45 he's still not in the lane. Those that have nothing, I'm not sure why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alex7 said:

at 6:43 he's on the grass. At 6:45 he's still not in the lane. Those that have nothing, I'm not sure why.

At 6:43 he's in the batter's box and just starting to run! Not a violation.

At 6:45 I can't see where he is or where he has been running.

For me, the video is inconclusive. I certainly can't see enough to warrant a judgment that the crew missed the call.

For me, given that the umpires were using proper mechanics, and without video evidence that they missed it, I conclude that they got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been tuned into this thread from the beginning, and I'm confused. Realizing I've got a lot to learn myself, and that I don't have the right to criticize much here, and wanting to be courteous in all things, especially understanding we're discussing this in hindsight, I still struggle to see how we can say this BR was EVER running legally to 1st base based on the video provided.

When the camera left the BR he was clearly in fair territory (legally for the first 45 ft.), and when the camera returns to the BR at about 6:44, it's evident the runner was in fair territory for at least the entire length of the cut out (more than a reach or step).

I'm teachable and coachable friends, but at present I don't see how this is NOT a violation of NCAA 7.11.p. I just want to understand if I'm missing something. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kstrunk said:

when the camera returns to the BR at about 6:44, it's evident the runner was in fair territory for at least the entire length of the cut out (more than a reach or step).

Isn't this speculation? You're guessing where the BR was when the camera was not "on" him.

We all know that camera angles can be misleading. Isn't it possible that you think you see something that isn't there?

We've used video for years in football, and it's only recently come to baseball. I recommend what I posted above: where we lack clear video evidence that a judgment call is wrong — and evidence from a bad angle is never clear evidence — we defer to the officials "on the diamond" who had the right angle.

Is it possible that this umpire missed the call? Of course: the video doesn't show that his judgment was correct, either (and by exactly the same reasoning).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

Isn't this speculation? You're guessing where the BR was when the camera was not "on" him.

We all know that camera angles can be misleading. Isn't it possible that you think you see something that isn't there?

We've used video for years in football, and it's only recently come to baseball. I recommend what I posted above: where we lack clear video evidence that a judgment call is wrong — and evidence from a bad angle is never clear evidence — we defer to the officials "on the diamond" who had the right angle.

Is it possible that this umpire missed the call? Of course: the video doesn't show that his judgment was correct, either (and by exactly the same reasoning).

I think speculation is fine in the context of this discussion, as opposed to sitting in the middle of a game determining if we have enough to overturn a call.   Most of us can infer that the BR is going to run as close to a straight line as he possibly can (in trying to run through first base, as opposed to proceeding to second) once he has established his path.

In fact, it's a lesson to how important positioning is for a call - if this angle was the only angle I saw, and I only had one chance to make the call in real time with no review, and there were no other umps present to give me a frame of reference, I think I'd call RLI with the information at hand.   And there's a pretty good chance it could be the incorrect call.

There's a point at 6:45 when the camera cuts back where you can see a cloud of chalk, making it look like he caught the baseline (or close enough to disturb it) on at least one of his steps.  

Your football analogy is perfect - if this replay was used to confirm/overturn an OB call there isn't enough there to say one way or the other.  No matter what the ump's call was, the call would "stand" it would not be "confirmed" nor "overturned/reversed".

And then if we're going by the letter of the law...does it matter where he is touching the ground, or does he only need a portion of his body (eg. shoulders, arms) inside the running lane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maven said:

Isn't this speculation? You're guessing where the BR was when the camera was not "on" him.

While the video clearly has the BR's right foot in fair territory at the beginning of the cutout, we can agree to disagree on that... my only question then, is... Does it matter where the runner was between 10 & 80 ft, IF he's running in fair territory, outside the confines of the lane, from 80-90 ft? Even if he were in the lane for a time, in this case, isn't his running in fair territory, outside the confines of the lane in the last 6-10 feet is a violation of the rule (assuming he left the lane prior to the need to step on the bag)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kstrunk said:

Does it matter where the runner was between 10 & 80 ft, IF he's running in fair territory, outside the confines of the lane, from 80-90 ft?

Yes and no. :)

No, in general, it doesn't matter all by itself that he's not in the lane, as being outside the lane is not sufficient to rule a violation. The BR on a safe single usually won't set foot in the running lane. (I know that you know this, just including it for the sake of completeness).

Yes, in general, it matters because being out of the lane is a necessary component of RLI (another being hindrance of the fielder taking the throw).

Being out of the lane for the entire length of the baseline is not probative of hindrance. It's part of a philosophy concerning benefit of the doubt regarding when the runner may veer into fair near the base. If he has been in the lane for, say, 30-35 feet and veers into fair "near" the base, then he gets the exception for going into fair, benefit of the doubt to the runner. If not, then no benefit of the doubt, and he'd better be at about the "last step" to get the exception.

As for being "out of the lane" when he's 80 feet from 1B: that's misleading. There is NO lane that far from 1B: the lane starts at 45 feet. He can't be expected to be in a lane where none exists, and if he has yet to reach the running lane when he's pegged — in fair territory, say — that's NOT RLI. The lane restriction does not exist until the BR reaches the lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, maven said:

There is NO lane that far from 1B: the lane starts at 45 feet. He can't be expected to be in a lane where none exists, and if he has yet to reach the running lane when he's pegged — in fair territory, say — that's NOT RLI. The lane restriction does not exist until the BR reaches the lane.

Agreed, as I stipulated in my previous post, but when he's outside the confines of the lane the last 10 ft, running (not stepping) in fair territory, and hinders the fielder in receiving a throw, that's RLI, that's all I'm saying. And... while I'm at it, I'm grateful for your wisdom, and grace. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2017 at 5:02 PM, csabo17 said:

Was the base guys in sleeves and pu in short sleeve?

Base guys should match, PU can wear what he wishes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

Yes this is RLI.

I agree. I'm surprised there's so many opinions and analyses to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2017 at 10:02 PM, ElkOil said:

I agree. I'm surprised there's so many opinions and analyses to the contrary.

It's not surprising. There's not enough evidence on the video to call interference. We don't know if the runner ever entered the running lane and the camera angle isn't the best. That's why I said No, I didn't have interference. Give me a different angle with a full view of the B/R and I might have interference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

It's not surprising. There's not enough evidence on the video to call interference. We don't know if the runner ever entered the running lane and the camera angle isn't the best. That's why I said No, I didn't have interference. Give me a different angle with a full view of the B/R and I might have interference. 

Certainly there's more going on than we can see, and like real life, we can only call what we do see. From the footage in the clip, I'd call RLI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×