Another RLI with ejections.

[Dbellyflop]

And this is from a catcher that probably learned to throw at the runner when out of the runners lane. 

If they got rid of the runners lane, maybe they should let the umpires know. 

[krwill96]

Warning! If you watch the A's broadcast turn the volume off to keep your sanity. 

[indianaumpire15]

That's textbook.  Good call.

[Jimurray]

The question is, at any level, knowing the rule why do they keep running out of the lane? The odds are for them and against umpires having rules knowledge and gonads? It seems to have changed at the MLB level.

[umpstu]

Good call.

[Lindsay]

According to Melvin, Fuld was not running in the line (in fair territory): "I went out there to argue and he said he was in the line and I said he wasn't in the line and he told me to go look at it," Melvin said. "So the reason I was late getting out there was because I went into look at it, saw that he was wrong and went out there and found out that Sam had been thrown out and I told him, 'You were wrong,' and he threw me out."

[GerryB]

Isn't bringing out information from clubhouse video automatic?

Good call; runner was caught in his illegal run and then trys to cover himself, which the announcers give credence to.

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v380291183/?query=interference

 

no embed feature yet

[stkjock]

So does one interpret the rule as once the lane starts down the line the runner needs to be in it?

 

as you can see from this still, he's right on the line the last few steps.   Poor throw by the catcher, should have been 3 feet to the inside from where it went, would have been out on a clean play IMO>

[Thunderheads]

So does one interpret the rule as once the lane starts down the line the runner needs to be in it?

 

as you can see from this still, he's right on the line the last few steps.   Poor throw by the catcher, should have been 3 feet to the inside from where it went, would have been out on a clean play IMO>

he's actually INSIDE .....

this one is a little closer than others that are typically called at this level.   At our levels, we could "maybe" get away with either not calling it, or calling it.   That being said ....at the MLB level .... ANY Play coming from where this play is coming from that doesn't have a great throw (like this one) will ALWAYS be called INT.... ALWAYS.   No runner will EVER follow the rule the way it's written, .... it's really not possible in the way the bases are run....

my .02, YMMV

Edited August 18, 2015 by Thunderheads

[JaxRolo]

I like the call!

[johnnyg08]

Isn't bringing out information from clubhouse video automatic?

Good call; runner was caught in his illegal run and then trys to cover himself, which the announcers give credence to.

Not with replay.  It used to be that way.

[johnnyg08]

So does one interpret the rule as once the lane starts down the line the runner needs to be in it?

 

as you can see from this still, he's right on the line the last few steps.   Poor throw by the catcher, should have been 3 feet to the inside from where it went, would have been out on a clean play IMO>

If he was compliant from the beginning then a runner could be protected (judgment) the last few steps to first base because the base is in fair territory, but since he was non-compliant the entire way down, he's not granted that same leeway.  That's paraphrasing OBR, MLBUM, PBUC, & NCAA

[noumpere]

So does one interpret the rule as once the lane starts down the line the runner needs to be in it?

 

as you can see from this still, he's right on the line the last few steps.   Poor throw by the catcher, should have been 3 feet to the inside from where it went, would have been out on a clean play IMO>

 

If the runner is not in the lane, he's liable to be called out for INT.

 

His right foot is on the line, but the left foot is in fair territory.  To be "protected" the runner needs to have both feet in the running lane (and the lane includes the lines). 

[maven]

So does one interpret the rule as once the lane starts down the line the runner needs to be in it?

as you can see from this still, he's right on the line the last few steps.   Poor throw by the catcher, should have been 3 feet to the inside from where it went, would have been out on a clean play IMO>

To interpret the rule, the first step is knowing what it actually says:

5.09(a)(11)/6.05(k): "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;"

Notice that the infraction involves two necessary conditions: (1) runner outside the lane, and (2) his being there hinders the fielder taking the throw at 1B.

Both of these conditions call for interpretation. (1) means either foot is landing completely outside the lane (where the lines are inside the lane). The comment to the rule states this interpretation explicitly.

(2) means that (a) there must be a throw, and (b) the throw would likely have retired the runner had the BR been in the lane. These two pieces have given rise to the concept of a "quality throw," though that is potentially misleading, since a crappy throw can often still retire the BR.

The last piece of interp we need is to understand the exception made for the runner going into fair near the base. That exception kicks in only when the runner has previously been in the lane. When he violates for all or most of the 45 feet of the lane, he is still liable to be called out for RLI, if the play meets both conditions specified in the rule.

[Thunderheads]

If the runner is not in the lane, he's liable to be called out for INT.

 

His right foot is on the line, but the left foot is in fair territory.  To be "protected" the runner needs to have both feet in the running lane (and the lane includes the lines). 

I agree with this.  However, ...this is why I said what I said in my post above ... pasted below:

"ANY Play coming from where this play is coming from that doesn't have a great throw (like this one) will ALWAYS be called INT.... ALWAYS.   No runner will EVER follow the rule the way it's written, .... it's really not possible in the way the bases are run...."

[Rich Ives]

The question is, at any level, knowing the rule why do they keep running out of the lane? The odds are for them and against umpires having rules knowledge and gonads? It seems to have changed at the MLB level.

It's a shorter route - takes less time. 

MLB defenders know how to find and use a throwing lane. That's why the call is rare - there is no interference happening no matter where the runner is.

Anyone teaching F2 to hit the runner should be banned form teaching. Risk of injury and retaliation.

[noumpere]

Anyone teaching F2 to hit the runner should be banned form teaching. Risk of injury and retaliation.

Just teach F2 to make a "normal" throw and NOT worry about the runner.  If the throw hits the runner, the runner is out.  If the throw doesn't hit the runner, F3 will (usually) catch it.

The problems come when F2 tries to do something else -- either he tries to hit the runner and misses, or tries to throw around the runner and makes a bad throw.

[stkjock]

he's actually INSIDE .....

this one is a little closer than others that are typically called at this level.   At our levels, we could "maybe" get away with either not calling it, or calling it.   That being said ....at the MLB level .... ANY Play coming from where this play is coming from that doesn't have a great throw (like this one) will ALWAYS be called INT.... ALWAYS.   No runner will EVER follow the rule the way it's written, .... it's really not possible in the way the bases are run....

my .02, YMMV

yes, I agree his body is inside.  Thank you for the explanation 

If he was compliant from the beginning then a runner could be protected (judgment) the last few steps to first base because the base is in fair territory, but since he was non-compliant the entire way down, he's not granted that same leeway.  That's paraphrasing OBR, MLBUM, PBUC, & NCAA

got it - great info thank you

If the runner is not in the lane, he's liable to be called out for INT.

 

His right foot is on the line, but the left foot is in fair territory.  To be "protected" the runner needs to have both feet in the running lane (and the lane includes the lines). 

understood - Thank you

 

To interpret the rule, the first step is knowing what it actually says:

Notice that the infraction involves two necessary conditions: (1) runner outside the lane, and (2) his being there hinders the fielder taking the throw at 1B.

Both of these conditions call for interpretation. (1) means either foot is landing completely outside the lane (where the lines are inside the lane). The comment to the rule states this interpretation explicitly.

(2) means that (a) there must be a throw, and (b) the throw would likely have retired the runner had the BR been in the lane. These two pieces have given rise to the concept of a "quality throw," though that is potentially misleading, since a crappy throw can often still retire the BR.

The last piece of interp we need is to understand the exception made for the runner going into fair near the base. That exception kicks in only when the runner has previously been in the lane. When he violates for all or most of the 45 feet of the lane, he is still liable to be called out for RLI, if the play meets both conditions specified in the rule.

great detail thank you Maven

[Thunderheads]

yes, I agree his body is inside.  Thank you for the explanation 

got it - great info thank you

understood - Thank you

great detail thank you Maven

this may help also ......  Gil always posts rules and interpretations when showing certain plays, and/or ejections....

http://www.closecallsports.com/2015/08/mlb-ejections-164-165-brian-knight-1-2.html

[basejester]

It's a shorter route - takes less time.  

I think that's correct.  It would be interesting to know how often a left-handed batter is called for running lane interference.  I would guess almost never.

 

[grayhawk]

According to Melvin, Fuld was not running in the line (in fair territory): "I went out there to argue and he said he was in the line and I said he wasn't in the line and he told me to go look at it," Melvin said. "So the reason I was late getting out there was because I went into look at it, saw that he was wrong and went out there and found out that Sam had been thrown out and I told him, 'You were wrong,' and he threw me out."

How effing stupid is Melvin?  He went to look at the video and determined that Fuld was legal?  He deserved to be thrown out for simply saying "You were wrong" because of how absurd it is to make that statement after looking at the replay.

[maven]

How effing stupid is Melvin?  He went to look at the video and determined that Fuld was legal?  He deserved to be thrown out for simply saying "You were wrong" because of how absurd it is to make that statement after looking at the replay.

I'd bet he simply doesn't know the rule. In his world, the rule says, "The runner is legal if he has one foot on the line when hit by the throw."

For newer umpires: it doesn't say that.