Baez ruled out of baseline

[Gfoley4]

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2016/05/23/728184883/1463971838943/asset_2500K.mp4

 

Pretty close, but I think he got it right. He was running in fair territory then went all the way to the other side of the runner's lane, which would be more than 3 feet.

[Lindsay]

One of the rare out of the base path calls where the 3-foot-wide runner's lane provides a great illustration of how far the runner went.

[Dbellyflop]

OMG!!!!!!!!

[Stk004]

The broadcasters gave me a good laugh. "He could have gone even farther in my opinion" 

[stkjock]

3 hours ago, Stk004 said:

The broadcasters gave me a good laugh. "He could have gone even farther in my opinion" 

Just watched this video before seeing the the thread.  That was Boone who said that.  

 

Nine of the three knew the rule. SMH 

[zm1283]

Full disclosure: I love the Cubs. 

I thought he kicked it at first and I was yelling at the TV. After watching it several times, he probably got it right. At worst it was a 50/50 call that could have gone either way. In either case, the ESPN announcers are clueless. None of the three have a clue about the actual rule. 

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, zm1283 said:

Full disclosure: I love the Cubs. 

I thought he kicked it at first and I was yelling at the TV. After watching it several times, he probably got it right. At worst it was a 50/50 call that could have gone either way. In either case, the ESPN announcers are clueless. None of the three have a clue about the actual rule. 

I was the opposite. Watching live I thought he got it right, no doubt. Then watching replay it was much closer than I thought. I think he still got it but it was close. 

[goody14]

Here is my question. When do you consider the tag being attempted?

When F3 fields the ball, Baez is clearly in fair territory. But, F3 is not close enough to make a tag.

F3 takes 1-2 steps to get close enough for a tag while at the same time Baez takes 1-2 steps more towards the line. By the time the tag is attempted Baez might be back to the line making his lunge to the other side of the running lane only 3 feet of movement.

 

[stkjock]

Good question @goody14

 

when F3 starts to reach, you can see BR sees the start of the attempt, begins evasive maneuvers...   

[Lindsay]

8 hours ago, stkjock said:

Just watched this video before seeing the the thread.  That was Boone who said that.  

 

Nine of the three knew the rule. SMH 

That would be "10% Boone," who scored a one out of 10 on the 2013 baseball rules quiz. The media cohort is decidedly less knowledgeable of the rules than any on-field personnel, and only marginally more knowledgeable than the fans.

[stkjock]

53 minutes ago, Gil said:

That would be "10% Boone," who scored a one out of 10 on the 2013 baseball rules quiz. The media cohort is decidedly less knowledgeable of the rules than any on-field personnel, and only marginally more knowledgeable than the fans.

the more I learn the more I see exactly that

 

I just tired the quiz... 8/10.... Thanks you guys on the board

[ricka56]

6 hours ago, goody14 said:

Here is my question. When do you consider the tag being attempted?

It is completely arbitrary. It depends on whether you are want to rule him out or safe.

Some would say that there never was a tag attempt, since the fielder was never within reach the runner to make a tag...go figure. 

 

[NickBooYeah]

1. You may find this series of tweets interesting as well. Read in reverse order (sorry!).

    

   ... Montague is not just sticking up for a brother. His job is to review ump calls for league so umps can be informed if they mess up.

   5 retweets14 likes

   Reply

    

   Retweet

    

   5

    

    

   Like

    

   14

    

   More
2.  

   Henry Schulman ‏@hankschulman  22h22 hours ago

   . . . showed me stills. He estimated Baez veered 8 feet from the moment he was allowed to veer 3. Montague said call was correct, and no...

   10 retweets12 likes

   Reply

    

   Retweet

    

   10

    

    

   Like

    

   12

    

   More
3.  

   Henry Schulman ‏@hankschulman  22h22 hours ago

   ... Baez was allowed to veer 3 feet. That 3 feet began from where he was, which was well inside base line. Montague watched video and ...

   9 retweets11 likes

   Reply

    

   Retweet

    

   9

    

    

   Like

    

   11

    

   More
4.  

   Henry Schulman ‏@hankschulman  22h22 hours ago

   Montague said 45-foot chalk line not in play at all. Baez created his own when he began straight line to bag. Once Belt approached ...

   9 retweets12 likes

   Reply

    

   Retweet

    

   9

    

    

   Like

    

   12

    

   More
5.  

   Henry Schulman ‏@hankschulman  22h22 hours ago

   Just talked to former ump, now ump supervisor Ed Montague, who explained to me exactly which rule applied on Baez call, and interpretation.

[Welpe]

Kudos to Jessica Mendoza for fitting right in with the rest of the ESPN broadcast team and kicking the crap out of the rules all the same. 

[Lindsay]

Might have been 8, I had 6 . The only reason I like having that lane as a reference point would be if I had that call in one my games and skip came out to argue, I'd say "Well, he started inside the left side of the lane and ended up clear on the right side of the lane. The lane is three feet, so by that token, he went more than three feet out of his way."

[noumpere]

Maybe ESPN can add an "R-Zone" to all plays that is just as accurately set by some intern as the K-Zone so all the fans can see how the umps are screwing the pooch.

[zoops]

Showed this video to some of our newer umpires.  One asked "was he out because he went outside of the runner's lane?"  My response was that the runner's lane is really only relevant to interfering with a thrown ball, although in this case it gave some perspective on how far the runner deviated from his path.  Just wanted to double check that my explanation was correct...

[noumpere]

45 minutes ago, zoops said:

Showed this video to some of our newer umpires.  One asked "was he out because he went outside of the runner's lane?"  My response was that the runner's lane is really only relevant to interfering with a thrown ball, although in this case it gave some perspective on how far the runner deviated from his path.  Just wanted to double check that my explanation was correct...

Absolutely.

[ricka56]

1 hour ago, zoops said:

Showed this video to some of our newer umpires.  One asked "was he out because he went outside of the runner's lane?"  My response was that the runner's lane is really only relevant to interfering with a thrown ball, although in this case it gave some perspective on how far the runner deviated from his path.  Just wanted to double check that my explanation was correct...

Another good 3 foot reference would be the distance from the center of your chest to your outstretched arm/fingers. Three feet is not very much distance. The 3 foot deviation violation is not a common call. Have some balls make the call.