FL @ LSU

[Bumps]

Understand what you are saying, but still have the same question, what is the point of the rule and the lines if the BR does not have to follow the rule?

The simple fact that F2 had to alter anything says BR did interfere and running lane interference should be called?

[UmpJM]

Bumps, 

 

That's kind of a philosophical question, but let me try to give you an answer. In two parts.

 

First, when the rule was first put in place, way back in the olden days, the diamond was layed out a little differently.

 

Specifically, home plate was located entirely in foul territory (as opposed to entirely in fair territory as it is today), and the "foul lines" ran smack dab through the center of 1B and 3B. The original intent of the rule was to prevent the BR from intentionally "crashing" the F3 in an effort to dislodge the ball. When the diamond was reconfigured to the current parameters, the rule was retained, but the intent "shifted a bit" to prevent the runner from intentionally hindering the fielder at 1B from receiving a "quality" throw by getting in the receiving fielder's way. The rule was never intended to protect the fielder making the throw. The rules makers COULD have made that choice (as the FED rules makers DID), but they chose not to.

 

Secondly, the rules of baseball have a number of examples of situations where the offensive player's actions make him "liable" to a call of interference, but he is only GUILTY of interference if he actually interferes. For example, with an R1 stealing, if the batter "stumbles" across the plate on his swing follow through - whether accidentally or on purpose - he has made himself LIABLE to a call of batter interference. But, if the catcher chooses not to attempt a throw, he will not be deemed guilty of BI because there was no action by the catcher with which he interfered. Again, the rules makers COULD have made him guilty anyway, but that's not how baseball works.

 

JM

[maven]

That BR was a step from the base when the throw arrived. Regardless of where the ball was, the runner is allowed to be in fair territory near the base. maven

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

By interpretation, if he's been running the whole way out of the lane, he is not afforded that latitude.

 

If he has been running within the lane, he is.

 

JM

[Bumps]

I still respectfully disagree. F2 had to alter his position and the play was not made. This really seems textbook and what the rule is for. If this is not interference, then not much, if anything, is.

[UmpJM]

Bumps,

 

Well, I guess I'll have to reconsider my interpretation then since you've presented such a compelling, informed, and persuasive argument. 

 

JM

[grayhawk]

I guess the question is this:

 

Did the BR, by running outside the running lane, interfere with the attempted catch of the thrown ball?

 

The funny thing is that if the throw was just a little MORE off-line, then this would have been an easy interference call because it would have hit BR in the shoulder, instead of barely missing him.

[noumpere]

I still respectfully disagree. F2 had to alter his position and the play was not made. This really seems textbook and what the rule is for. If this is not interference, then not much, if anything, is.

It might be what you think the rule should be for and many would agree with you but its not what the rule really is for.

[BalkHawk]

I agree wholeheartedly with JM; It doesn't matter that F2 had to move to create a lane, and BR is not afforded the last step when he hasn't been within the runners lane.

I have a theory that F2 first moved a couple steps in to create a throwing lane, but when he saw BR in fair territory, changed his objective to hitting BR in the back, which he did unsuccessfully.

[johnnyg08]

That BR was a step from the base when the throw arrived. Regardless of where the ball was, the runner is allowed to be in fair territory near the base. maven

 

 

Not if he's illegal the entire way down.  That's the piece people miss.

[BigUmpire]

 

Bumps,

 

If F2 had stayed where he was initially to throw, and drilled the BR in the back with the throw while he was out of the lane, you would have running lane interference. Similarly, in this play where he did move, had he thrown "to the base" and hit the BR, that would have been RLI as well.

 

JM

Drill em everytime!

[alex7]

Hiler wants interference on this. He specifically said he doesn't want catchers to have to drill a runner every time to get INT. Runner was inside the field whole way, catcher's throw was good enough, textbook INT. We don't have to go out of our way to defend a missed call.

The fact some are agreeing that if the throw had hit the runner it would be INT makes the point that all other conditions were met.

[UmpJM]

alex,

 

I disagree with your assertion of what Tom "wants".

 

Where was the actual interference in your judgment? 

 

The fact that if the throw HAD hit the runner it would have been interference, actually makes the case that the necessary conditions were NOT met for calling interference.

 

JM

[Rich Ives]

Watch the pros.  A running lane violation is very rare because the defense knows how to make the play.  I would expect the same of a major college D1 team.

 

 

Drilling them every time will just start a retaliation war.  Learn how to do it right.

[carolinablue]

Watch the pros.  A running lane violation is very rare because the defense knows how to make the play.  I would expect the same of a major college D1 team.

 

 

Drilling them every time will just start a retaliation war.  Learn how to do it right.

 

 

Or is it because the runner knows he will get drilled if he don't keep his arse in the lane?

[noumpere]

alex,

 

I disagree with your assertion of what Tom "wants".

 

Where was the actual interference in your judgment? 

 

The fact that if the throw HAD hit the runner it would have been interference, actually makes the case that the necessary conditions were NOT met for calling interference.

 

JM

I have the interference in the defensive player pulling off the base early because he thought he was going to get drilled by the runner and this movement caused him to not catch the ball.  But its all judgement and just like many of the plays in the clinic we'll get a 50-50 split on this.

[zm1283]

I'll be honest: I think the BR running out the lane at least affected F3's ability to catch the ball somewhat, so I can see where an INT call would be defended as well.  Looks to me by the way F3 reacted that he was shielded from seeing the ball all the way from F2, hence why he might have dropped it.

 

I also don't think the BR was on his "last step", even if he had been in the lane legally the whole time.  He was still a good full stride from the base when the ball arrived.

 

Just my two cents.

[MidAmUmp]

Now that I've seen the video I would say it's probably interference, but the angle is still inconclusive if he was out of the lane the entire way but I think you can fill in the blanks and figure out that he was running out of the lane.

 

I try not to knock umpires who work at a high level.  I don't know the plate guy or the 1st base guy (at least I don't think I do), but I do know one of the guys on that crew and he knows what he's doing.  Having said that, the plate umpire would have been better served to move up to 1st base line extended after the force at the plate instead of staying at the point of the plate.  You have to continue working.  Also, after the ball gets away at 1st, the 1st base umpire wants to call "something" or is looking for "something" to be called when he kind of points at the B/R.

[GoodOldGus]

I don't think I would have INT on this play.  The steps taken by the catcher to get a better angle to first base is text book catching mechanics.  Catcher's are taught to "get that angle" with a couple quick steps towards the mound.  His throw sailed on him a bit and made the catch difficult for F3. 

 

The base umpire's reaction is interesting.  He seems like he wants to call interference because he starts to raise his arm, but then he doesn't call anything.  Not even a safe mechanic.  Interesting.

[Haid D' Salaami]

BR in inside fair territory on a 1-2-3 double play. Umps got together and still missed it. Pretty obvious on live, but even moremobviousnon replay.

Not an LSU fan at all, but they took it in the shorts on this one...

What made you think they "missed it".. were you in the game?....was the throw of quality? did the when did the BR get hit with the ball.. was it within a slide, step, or reach of the base?...

[Haid D' Salaami]

maven,

 

By interpretation, if he's been running the whole way out of the lane, he is not afforded that latitude.

 

If he has been running within the lane, he is.

 

JM

That is correct.

[Bumps]

Haid, the simple fact that they did not call it, says to me they missed it. Yes, my opinion, but they missed this one. We all miss one here and there.

If this was not interference, then nothing is and a runner can and should run wherever they want.