RLI

[ricka56]

Gutsy RLI call...gutsy in that BR was in the last step to 1B when the throw arrived. I like it.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v210238083/cletb-lindor-called-out-on-batter-interference/?query=oddities

[maven]

The BR may divert into fair ground the last step or two in order to touch the base (which is in fair). Had Lindor been in the lane until just before the base and the same thing happened there (throw a little behind him, F3 can't reach it), this would be a no-call.

Since Lindor ran the whole way with both feet in fair, he loses that privilege at the base. Correct call.

Suggestion to coaches: teach the RLI rule as part of bunting instruction.

[ricka56]

Suggestion to coaches: teach the RLI rule as part of bunting instruction.

​I was taught to violate the RL rule, put pressure on the thrower/receiver and put it on PU to make a call...most smittys would never make that call.

[maven]

most smittys would never make that call.

​Too true. Something we work on in our association.

[JaxRolo]

Good call

[UmpJeff]

To quote Randy Marsh in the 2014's The Third Team..."That's a great call.  It's a tough call.  But it's a great call."

[catsbackr]

Terrible throw by the pitcher.  Great call.

[MikeSafari]

Yeah I'm with @maven again on this one. He spent way too much time in fair territory there, and lost the privilege of being protected while making contact with the base.

I don't see this as a particularly tough or gutsy call for a professional to make, personally.

[maven]

I don't see this as a particularly tough or gutsy call for a professional to make, personally.

​You might be right; but given ricka's followup post, I think he meant that it's a quality call that not enough amateur umpires make.

FWIW, I think that in the past few seasons it has been called much more consistently at the pro level. At some point, that will filter down to lower levels, and we'll see fewer coaches whining about it.

And then maybe even the announcers will figure out the rule.

[grayhawk]

​You might be right; but given ricka's followup post, I think he meant that it's a quality call that not enough amateur umpires make.

FWIW, I think that in the past few seasons it has been called much more consistently at the pro level. At some point, that will filter down to lower levels, and we'll see fewer coaches whining about it.

And then maybe even the announcers will figure out the rule.

​I actually have to give kudos to the announcers on this video.  Much better than most.

[ricka56]

Yeah I'm with @maven again on this one. He spent way too much time in fair territory there, and lost the privilege of being protected while making contact with the base.

I don't see this as a particularly tough or gutsy call for a professional to make, personally.

I agree with what you and Maven said about this play, but at this level, fielders are expected to make good throws. And when they don't, they can give an umpire a reason not to call RLI. The throw in the OP was from a place where a good throw would not have been interfered with.

[noumpere]

I agree with what you and Maven said about this play, but at this level, fielders are expected to make good throws. And when they don't, they can give an umpire a reason not to call RLI. The throw in the OP was from a place where a good throw would not have been interfered with.

​I think you're putting too high a definition on "good throw" as it's applied to this rule.  If F3 could have gloved the ball, that's enough.

[ricka56]

​I think you're putting too high a definition on "good throw" as it's applied to this rule.  If F3 could have gloved the ball, that's enough.

Would that throw be good enough if it came from F6 in the hole or F5 near 3B? Even though this rule doesn't limit where a throw can come from, I believe the current interp is that the throw has to come from behind the BR. At some angle (maybe not this one), F3 possibly saving a throwing error may not be good enough to bail him out with a RLI call. I think this F1's position in the OP was close to that angle.

 

[Platejob29]

Focusing on the throw is the wrong thing to do in this situation. Think of it like batters interference on a throw down to 2nd. We don't go "well the throw was still pretty good so I'm gonna get an out here." The position of the batter runner in this play has more to do with the throw than the actual quality of the throw. To put it into the simplest of terms. If the fielder can not make his best possible throw due to the position of the BR than you have interference. Obviously not the only thing that goes into a BLI but if you are having to judge if the BR hindered the fielder's throw then it's a good way to look at that particular aspect of the play.

[maven]

Focusing on the throw is the wrong thing to do in this situation. Think of it like batters interference on a throw down to 2nd. We don't go "well the throw was still pretty good so I'm gonna get an out here." The position of the batter runner in this play has more to do with the throw than the actual quality of the throw. To put it into the simplest of terms. If the fielder can not make his best possible throw due to the position of the BR than you have interference. Obviously not the only thing that goes into a BLI but if you are having to judge if the BR hindered the fielder's throw then it's a good way to look at that particular aspect of the play.

​I disagree with both parts of your claim: the quality of throw IS relevant to judging RLI (at least under the pro interp), and it is NOT relevant to judging batter INT.

The difference is that RLI is hindrance of the fielder taking the throw, and batter INT is hindrance of the fielder making the throw.

So we pass on RLI if F2 (or whoever) sails the throw 15 feet over F3's head: the runner's position caused no hindrance in that case, and no hindrance = no INT. Any benefit of the doubt (as perhaps in the OP) to the defense. Note that the hindrance doesn't occur until the throw arrives: the hindrance we're concerned with in RLI is the fielder taking the throw. Without a "quality throw," the fielder taking the throw cannot be hindered (despite the FED rule, which is different, and removes this element of judgment from the call).

With batter INT, OTOH, we're concerned with F2 making  the throw, and if we judge hindrance we call it right away: we do NOT wait to see what happens with the throw (if any). The penalty builds in a corrective mechanism: a throw that retires a runner is treated as sufficient penalty on the play, so the INT is "ignored."

Since batter INT occurs at the start of a throw, we call that immediately, and the quality of throw (if any) is irrelevant. Since RLI occurs at the end of a throw, we must wait till the hindrance occurs, and the quality of throw is relevant.

[ricka56]

So we pass on RLI if F2 (or whoever) sails the throw 15 feet over F3's head: the runner's position caused no hindrance in that case, and no hindrance = no INT. Any benefit of the doubt (as perhaps in the OP) to the defense. Note that the hindrance doesn't occur until the throw arrives: the hindrance we're concerned with in RLI is the fielder taking the throw. Without a "quality throw," the fielder taking the throw cannot be hindered (despite the FED rule, which is different, and removes this element of judgment from the call).

With batter INT, OTOH, we're concerned with F2 making  the throw, and if we judge hindrance we call it right away: we do NOT wait to see what happens with the throw (if any). The penalty builds in a corrective mechanism: a throw that retires a runner is treated as sufficient penalty on the play, so the INT is "ignored."

​The second paragraph would suggest that one could call BI if BR's position, out of the RL, caused F2 to sail the throw 15 feet over F3's head (hindered the throw). I don't think you meant that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To put it into the simplest of terms. If the fielder can not make his best possible throw due to the position of the BR than you have interference.

This is where this play is a marginal RLI call, IMO. The camera angle doesn't show it, but I doubt BR was far enough down the line to disrupt F1 throwing path (at time of throw). ​But I completely agree that a marginal RLI is a RLI (benefit of the doubt to the defense). 

So if a throw like this came from F6 in the hole or F5 near 3B, would anyone have RLI ? If not, what would be your justification for no RLI ?

[Majordave]

​I was taught to violate the RL rule, put pressure on the thrower/receiver and put it on PU to make a call...most smittys would never make that call.

Ed Zackery!  I was taught. And I taught it. I also taught my catcher (age 15 through 19 Legion) to drill a batter-runner running in fair territory between the shoulder blades or right in the ass. 

Sometimes Learning needs to be painful. 

[JaxRolo]

Would that throw be good enough if it came from F6 in the hole or F5 near 3B? Even though this rule doesn't limit where a throw can come from, I believe the current interp is that the throw has to come from behind the BR. At some angle (maybe not this one), F3 possibly saving a throwing error may not be good enough to bail him out with a RLI call. I think this F1's position in the OP was close to that angle.

 

I was told by the head instructor at Wendelstads that the grow can even come from 2nd base.

[ricka56]

I was told by the head instructor at Wendelstads that the throw can even come from 2nd base.

​Did anyone ask him if he'd ever made that call ?  You first

[maven]

​Did anyone ask him if he'd ever made that call ?  You first

​Does the rule specify where the throw must come from?

Given the geometry, it's difficult to imagine how a BR coming up the line could hinder a fielder taking a throw from F4 in his usual position. But Wendelstedt's interps have generally been very close to the rule as written, and this instance is no exception (I've heard the same from them).

[noumpere]

I was told by the head instructor at Wendelstads that the grow can even come from 2nd base.

​In theory, that's true.  In practice, not so much.

 

(In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are different.)

[JaxRolo]

​In theory, that's true.  In practice, not so much.

 

(In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are different.)

I realize that. Just stating what I've been taught.