No 7.13 Violation?

[Thunderheads]

Based on all of the 7.13 replays we've seen ......especially the ones that have been ruled a violation ..... how is this one NOT a violation?

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/70467870/v35643825

[JaxRolo]

Because its stupid and he was out!

[Thunderheads]

Because its stupid and he was out!

but go look at the 7.13 violations that were called ....they look like this one

[JaxRolo]

Agree. But I am good with not calling that one. How far away does the runner have to be for it to be ok for the catcher to be able to block it.

[Thunderheads]

Agree. But I am good with not calling that one. How far away does the runner have to be for it to be ok for the catcher to be able to block it.

I understand totally .........

And I agree w/ the call on the field.  However, .... prior plays like this have been called violations ............

 

We need @ricka56 to do a video "still shot" analysis of this one and others!

[ricka56]

One difference may be that the throw brought F2 to where he was (which is allowed). F2's mitt is above/between his feet when the ball arrived.

 

Another difference may be the distance R3 is from HP when F2 received the ball. (despite the recent dubious call where R3 was a long way from HP and they still called a 7.13(2) violation).

[afaber12]

I wonder if an element that might be the difference between this not being called and the others being called is that the runner was coming from a way into foul territory, whereas most of the other ones I've seen (which I think is all of the ones debated on here) the runner has usually been very close to, if not on the line as he's coming to the plate.

 

I wonder if because this one has a different angle of approach, it was deemed that the runner still had access to the plate before the catcher had possession of the ball. That angle isn't perfectly in line with the runner's approach, but maybe the point of the plate wasn't deemed to be blocked. After the catcher has the ball, he then takes a step with his left foot that absolutely blocks the plate, but that by itself doesn't violate 7.13.

 

That's the only thing I can see, but these reviews have seemed to be a bit of a coinflip, so maybe this one was just heads instead of tails.