Running lane violation.....

[Thunderheads]

http://www.mlb.com/v...693903&c_id=mlb

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24693903&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24693903&v=3

try not to puke when listening to the announcers!!! :shakehead:

[BRUMP]

Good call.

[Dannytheman]

Great call, and I did gag when listening to announcers. How do you not know this rule?

[24sdad]

Great call, and I did gag when listening to announcers. How do you not know this rule?

I am surprised when they do know a rule.

Angel game the other night (IFF in effect) and a pretty high pop up that takes F6 10-15 feet onto outfield grass. F6 is camped under it and F7 had plenty of time to come in and camp under it too. F6 eventually calls F7 off and makes the catch. Announcers went on about how great a play it was by F6 to call him off "to keep the IFF in effect," because if F7 would have caught it (or dropped it) they lose the IFF protection because he is an outfielder.

I swear, Vin Scully (who does not need an uniformed, ex-player color commentator sharing the mic) is the only one I enjoy listening to anymore.

[Lindsay]

Announcers went on about how great a play it was by F6 to call him off "to keep the IFF in effect," because if F7 would have caught it (or dropped it) they lose the IFF protection because he is an outfielder.

That's why I like to play my outfielders shallow, just for the easy double play no matter where the fly is hit. :smachhead:

[Jimurray]

Great call, and I did gag when listening to announcers. How do you not know this rule?

In OBR I do not have a quality throw and don't have interference.

[Dragon29]

In OBR I do not have a quality throw and don't have interference.

I do. In my judgment, the throw was as good as can be expected when the BR is right there (practically stepping on the fielder while not in the running lane) in his way.

Good call on the INT.

[basejester]

I do. In my judgment, the throw was as good as can be expected when the BR is right there (practically stepping on the fielder while not in the running lane) in his way.

Good call on the INT.

I think you have to pick between calling the BR out for interference with the fielder of the batted ball (which I think you could make a case for) under 7.09 (j) or calling the BR out for interference with the fielder taking the throw under 6.05 (k). I don't think you can take near interference under 7.09 (j) as a contributing factor to call interference under 6.05 (k).

[UMP45]

IMO when the runner never runs in the lane he looses a lot of his protection.

[Jimurray]

IMO when the runner never runs in the lane he looses a lot of his protection.

IMO he does based on numerous official interps. But I don't see a quality throw here which I thought was the latest requirement for this call. However, my WUM gives me pause on this requirement after reading it and unable to quote it on this EFFING iPad. But based upon basejesters point about 7.09(j) which focuses upon the pitcher's slowing down to avoid getting plowed by the runner ,you might have INT on that event. I don't know where I read it but some where a fielder pulling up to avoid a runner ploughing him was called int.

[mstaylor]

Remember, in OBR you are judging the F3's ability to catch the ball, not the catcher's ability to throw it, this is why you need a quality throw. I believe on this play, while not a great throw, it was good enough it could have been caught. It wasn't because of the runner being in the line of the throw, running lane violation. If you don't think it is a quality throw, then you are correct to call nothing. This is the beauty of judgement, you know and understand the requirement by rule, then you apply that and judge what happened.

[Dragon29]

I do. In my judgment, the throw was as good as can be expected when the BR is right there (practically stepping on the fielder while not in the running lane) in his way.

Good call on the INT.

I think you have to pick between calling the BR out for interference with the fielder of the batted ball (which I think you could make a case for) under 7.09 (j) or calling the BR out for interference with the fielder taking the throw under 6.05 (k). I don't think you can take near interference under 7.09 (j) as a contributing factor to call interference under 6.05 (k).

Good point - and as mstaylor implies, sometimes, you just gotta umpire. In this case, I'd still bang the Out for the lane violation.