RLI ??????????????

[dumbdumb]

Well

A famous HP umpire who later called Don Larson's perfect game in the 1956 World Series, decided this was not RLI, in the season opening game at Ebbetts field on Tuesday April 15th, 1947.

Working with him was future Hall of Famer Al Barlick at 1B.

It was the debut for the rookie umpire at 3B Artie Gore.

Boston was ahead 3-2 going into the bottom of the 7th.

The first batter, Eddie Stanky, drew a walk from Johnny Sain, and then the bunt by Robinson who was also making his National League debut. 3 runs were scored in the inning and Brooklyn went on to defeat Boston 5-3.

Missing in action on this day was none other than Brooklyn Manager Leo, the lip, Durocher who had been suspended by the Commissioner (A.B. "Happy" Chandler) for the 1947 season, for associating with known gamblers.

Enjoy

http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2017/04/15/224345982/footage-from-jackie-robinsons-first-game-in-the-major-leagues

 

[Rich Ives]

17 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

Well

A famous HP umpire who later called Don Larson's perfect game in the 1956 World Series, decided this was not RLI, in the season opening game at Ebbetts field on Tuesday April 15th, 1947.

Working with him was future Hall of Famer Al Barlick at 1B.

It was the debut for the rookie umpire at 3B Artie Gore.

Boston was ahead 3-2 going into the bottom of the 7th.

The first batter, Eddie Stanky, drew a walk from Johnny Sain, and then the bunt by Robinson who was also making his National League debut. 3 runs were scored in the inning and Brooklyn went on to defeat Boston 5-3.

Missing in action on this day was none other than Brooklyn Manager Leo, the lip, Durocher who had been suspended by the Commissioner (A.B. "Happy" Chandler) for the 1947 season, for associating with known gamblers.

Enjoy

http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2017/04/15/224345982/footage-from-jackie-robinsons-first-game-in-the-major-leagues

Uncatchable throw.  Nothing to interfere with.   Remember that the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw.

[Umpire in Chief]

On 4/16/2017 at 10:29 AM, Rich Ives said:

Uncatchable throw.  Nothing to interfere with.   Remember that the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw.

I'm not so sure. It looks like it could have been caught???

[Rich Ives]

50 minutes ago, Umpire in Chief said:

I'm not so sure. It looks like it could have been caught???

The throw bounces mid-running lane a few feet before 1B.  No way that gets caught.

[Umpire in Chief]

I can't really see the bounce, but I'll take your word for it.

My next questions are... What were the OBR in 1947? How much different were they from today? What were some of the prevailing interpretations? 

[johnnyg08]

 

On 4/17/2017 at 0:49 PM, Umpire in Chief said:

I can't really see the bounce, but I'll take your word for it.

My next questions are... What were the OBR in 1947? How much different were they from today? What were some of the prevailing interpretations? 

Courtesy of JEA:

The runner's lane, as we know it, had its origin in 1882. The rules required a line to be drawn from a point half- way between home and first base parallel to the foul line three feet away. The only difference in that layout and today's is that the foul line connected the point of home plate with the center of first base; therefore, part of the running lane encompassed one half of the base. Technically, today's runner's lane bypasses first base.

Though umpires were instructed to declare out the runner from home who ran "in fair territory", common sense generally prevailed and the rule was not invoked unless the ball was being fielded to first base when the infraction occurred. In 1891, this philosophy was manifested in a rule amendment which specified that the ball had to be fielded to first for it to apply.

The rule serves two purposes: (1) It prevents a runner from leaving the base path and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base, and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first. Early in the 1900's, more common sense dominated. The rule was re-worded to allow the umpire to use his judgment in determining when and if a runner's position out of the runner's lane actually interfered with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

From the beginning in 1882, an exception was made for a runner who found it necessary to leave the runner's lane to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Such runner could not be called out for a lane violation.

Professional Interpretation: One factor influencing the umpire's judgment on these plays is the quality of the throw to first base. If a throw which has no realistic chance of retiring the batter-runner is made, the batter-runner shall not be declared out for interference (lane violation) if he is hit by the throw or the fielder cannot make the catch.

The ball MUST be thrown for this rule to be invoked; otherwise, it is impossible for him to interfere with a fielder taking a throw.

An allowance should be made for the batter-runner to step inside the foul line as he reaches the “immediate vicinity” of first base; otherwise, the base is not readily accessible for him to touch since the runner's lane runs adjacent and past the base in foul territory.

A batter-runner may be called out for a runner's lane violation when he is out of the lane on either side. This decision is based on where the throw is originating.

[BrianC14]

I don't think that's the ball bouncing several feet in front of the base, I think it's a problem/issue with the film.  To me, the ball can be seen about 3 feet beyond first base, moving slightly left to right of the fair/foul line.  

[AnUmpiresUmpire]

I see it the same way.. interference

[beerguy55]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:58 AM, Rich Ives said:

The throw bounces mid-running lane a few feet before 1B.  No way that gets caught.

The throw passed by Robinson's right shoulder in the air, not via bounce.  The only reason it's not getting caught is because Jackie Robinson is in the way.  The catcher was likely trying to hit him square between the 4 and the 2.

[Rich Ives]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The throw passed by Robinson's right shoulder in the air, not via bounce.  The only reason it's not getting caught is because Jackie Robinson is in the way.  The catcher was likely trying to hit him square between the 4 and the 2.

looked like a bounce to me.

[umpstu]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:49 AM, Umpire in Chief said:

I can't really see the bounce, but I'll take your word for it.

My next questions are... What were the OBR in 1947? How much different were they from today? What were some of the prevailing interpretations? 

I didn't see it either

[dumbdumb]

here is another angle starting at :40 of the play.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/7112960/v13833981/mlb-network-looks-at-the-debut-of-jackie-robinson

[Mudisfun]

Considering the era... If there was an opportunity for an out to be called on Jackie Robinson I would expect they would have taken the opportunity.

Also give @Rich Ives some slack... he may have been at that game and saw 'the bounce' in person 

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

Considering the era... If there was an opportunity for an out to be called on Jackie Robinson I would expect they would have taken the opportunity.

Also give @Rich Ives some slack... he may have been at that game and saw 'the bounce' in person 

I was three. I remember like it was yesterday.