Officially Speaking - RLI No-Call, Part Deux

[Lindsay]

Official Business presents Runner's Lane Interference No-Call, Part Deux, a look back and review of Manny Gonzalez's runner's lane interference no-call in Cleveland. Also see: RLI Part One. The following is commentary from Official Business CEO and former MiLB Umpire Brian Hertzog. Umpire...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[RichMSN]

To me this article is diarrhea of the keyboard.

Common sense and fair play tells most to call RLI on the guy who's obviously trying to interfere, not engage in gymnastics to figure out how to confirm the no-call.

Penalizing the defense for not going inside or outside enough -- that's a new one. "Sorry, but you didn't choose a proper throwing lane. Even though the runner is out of the lane and is trying to get in the way of the throw, that's on you."

[blue23ll]

Sorry, but I couldn't even read this article. And the concept of not calling RLI because the defense didn't chose to throw inside/outside to me is quite a stretch. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, RichMSN said:

To me this article is diarrhea of the keyboard.

Common sense and fair play tells most to call RLI on the guy who's obviously trying to interfere, not engage in gymnastics to figure out how to confirm the no-call.

Penalizing the defense for not going inside or outside enough -- that's a new one. "Sorry, but you didn't choose a proper throwing lane. Even though the runner is out of the lane and is trying to get in the way of the throw, that's on you."

Trying to get in the way of the throw would be INT with or without a lane. Some rationalizing still taking place at CCS. Time to get rid the rule. No other base requires the runner in a lane.  I believe Jim Evans thinks it's an anachronism. 

[RichMSN]

This isn't CCS - it's an article he's posting.

I disagree with eliminating the lane. A catcher (or another fielder in the box) shouldn't have to guess where to make a throw to first

[Jimurray]

25 minutes ago, RichMSN said:

This isn't CCS - it's an article he's posting.

I disagree with eliminating the lane. A catcher (or another fielder in the box) shouldn't have to guess where to make a throw to first

No they shouldn't have to guess. They should use the same process F3 uses when he throws to F6 at 2B. Find a lane outside R1's path. If R1 intentionally deviates he's guilty of INT if something happens. Based on the article, with the current rule, intentional legal deviation can take place when running to 1B. 

[RichMSN]

If you believe what he says. I've talked to other former pro umpires who said that line of thinking is hooey.

[Jimurray]

55 minutes ago, RichMSN said:

If you believe what he says. I've talked to other former pro umpires who said that line of thinking is hooey.

Former pro involves a lot of guys. This is my take on the story. I am of the opinion that a former pro, Jim Evans thinks the rule is an anachronism. The rule has been properly/improperly called/nocalled many times. It's a troublesome rule as evidenced by numerous disputes of calls or no calls and the CCS post which twice tries to rationalize a no call. Eliminating the rule would be the best option. Simple. When I heard Jim Evans espouse this rule as an anachronism at a clinic quite a few years ago I did not agree with him. I now agree. Not that I'm anywhere near Mr. Evan's gravitas.

[Lindsay]

5 hours ago, RichMSN said:

This isn't CCS - it's an article he's posting.

I disagree with eliminating the lane. A catcher (or another fielder in the box) shouldn't have to guess where to make a throw to first

Actually, CCS—technically the UEFL Appeals Board, which includes Rich and myself—disagreed with the no-call. IIRC our Board unanimously felt it was RLI. Specifically, if I remember this right, we all had B1 out of his lane when contact occurred whereas Brian had him on the line at the pivotal moment.

We also unanimously had Tichenor's call as RLI. But with Tichenor's since the throw didn't actually hit B1, there's at least a bit more leeway IMO as to whether F3 muffed the catch himself or whether B1's actions out of the lane really did illegally hinder him. Our Board thought the latter is what occurred, but I can see why one might think F3 messed it up on his own.