RLV

[Richvee]

Great example of how the runner needs to interfere with a catchable throw to 1B for RLV to be called. 

RLV in FED all day. 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v573945783/?c_id=mlb

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

Thought the same thing on replay. Read the description in the article. Then watched the replay. Just airmails the throw. "Not a quality throw"

 

Absolutely in FED. No quality throw needed.

[maven]

As usual, the homer commentors make a hash of it.

The infraction is: running outside the lane (either or both feet) AND hindering the fielder TAKING the throw at (not making the throw to) 1B.

The pro interpretation is: unless the throw has a good chance of retiring the runner without the INT, there can't be any hindrance of the fielder taking it. Hence the demand for a "quality throw": a throw that would otherwise retire the runner.

In the video, it's clearly not a quality throw. F1 might be trying to throw it over the runner, but his being hindered by the runner's position, if he is, does not constitute INT. The throw is 10 feet high, and the fielder would have had no chance to retire the runner had he been in the lane, so no hindrance = no INT. IMO, the crew gave Girardi too much rope.

The FED rule is a syntactical morass: it's basically the same, except the idea of "hindering the fielder taking the throw at 1B" is interpreted loosely. If there's a throw from the direction of the plate, ish, and the runner is outside the lane, then it's INT. Easy.

[Richvee]

Yep. Too much rope for Joe. And he didn't stop at the post game press conference...Talking about how the rule needs to be "revisited".

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, maven said:

The FED rule is a syntactical morass: it's basically the same, except the idea of "hindering the fielder taking the throw at 1B" is interpreted loosely. If there's a throw from the direction of the plate, ish, and the runner is outside the lane, then it's INT. Easy.

I mostly agree with the second statement (though I can think of examples where this is not the case), but disagree with your first statement that Fed is "basically the same."  In Fed, it's interference with EITHER the fielder TAKING the throw at 1B, OR the fielder MAKING the throw.  In other words, if the fielder airmails the throw, and we judge that it was the BR being outside the lane that caused the errant throw, then we should still call the interference.  I know you know this, but don't think you expressed it very precisely (which is out of character for you).

[Richvee]

Funny stuff on MLB network right now. Billy Ripken whining that "if the runner's out of the lane, he should be out. period. Funny.....Pretty sure I can remember him and Reynolds ranting on and on last season about the rule should be abolished.

[umpstu]

5 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I mostly agree with the second statement (though I can think of examples where this is not the case), but disagree with your first statement that Fed is "basically the same."  In Fed, it's interference with EITHER the fielder TAKING the throw at 1B, OR the fielder MAKING the throw.  In other words, if the fielder airmails the throw, and we judge that it was the BR being outside the lane that caused the errant throw, then we should still call the interference.  I know you know this, but don't think you expressed it very precisely (which is out of character for you).

Exactly. If that fielder throws the ball 10 feet over the 1b head die to no fault of the runner, I won't enforce it.  Just watched it and it was just a horrible throw.  Looked like Shaq shooting a free throw.

[ALStripes17]

Exactly. If that fielder throws the ball 10 feet over the 1b head die to no fault of the runner, I won't enforce it.  Just watched it and it was just a horrible throw.  Looked like Shaq shooting a free throw.

The point is FED doesn't want fielders squaring runners up in the back...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I mostly agree with the second statement (though I can think of examples where this is not the case), but disagree with your first statement that Fed is "basically the same."  In Fed, it's interference with EITHER the fielder TAKING the throw at 1B, OR the fielder MAKING the throw.  In other words, if the fielder airmails the throw, and we judge that it was the BR being outside the lane that caused the errant throw, then we should still call the interference.  I know you know this, but don't think you expressed it very precisely (which is out of character for you).

I guess we just disagree about what 'basically' means.

[zoops]

Does NCAA take the OBR approach to this rule?

[noumpere]

9 minutes ago, zoops said:

Does NCAA take the OBR approach to this rule?

Yes -- so the OP would NOT be RLI in NCAA

[Richvee]

Program alert.....There was RLV called in SF today. MLB network just showed the highlights, and and Harold Reynolds promised he's going to discuss this...I'm always up for a little aggravation listening to this guy who, for some reason, can't comprehend the meaning of a quality throw.

[Tksjewelry]

Program alert.....There was RLV called in SF today. MLB network just showed the highlights, and and Harold Reynolds promised he's going to discuss this...I'm always up for a little aggravation listening to this guy who, for some reason, can't comprehend the meaning of a quality throw.

If you find a video of it please share.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk