Angels protest lack of runners' lane interference

[Gfoley4]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v978911183/laakc-mondesi-collects-bunt-single-angels-protest/

[Stk004]

15 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v978911183/laakc-mondesi-collects-bunt-single-angels-protest/

No good look to tell if the BR hindered F3 taking the throw or if it was simply a bad throw. 

[Thunderheads]

Let's be honest ...........

99.99999999% of the time ....THIS IS CALLED .....

I agree there's not a good view, but from what I can see, BR looks ok .........

[scrounge]

I don't have RLI on this...and even if I and a lot of others did, how is this protestable?

[stkjock]

Gil has a write up on this play

 

http://www.closecallsports.com/2016/07/angels-protest-cuzzis-rli-no-call-in.html

 

 

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, stkjock said:

Gil has a write up on this play

 

http://www.closecallsports.com/2016/07/angels-protest-cuzzis-rli-no-call-in.html

 

 

Gil also posts here under his own section  

 

[stkjock]

yes, that's where I saw it..   since they were not merged I just linked the write up

[johnpatrick]

3 hours ago, stkjock said:

Gil has a write up on this play

 

http://www.closecallsports.com/2016/07/angels-protest-cuzzis-rli-no-call-in.html

 

 

This is a great write-up on this play.  It seems that many umpires don't understand the "run the whole way out of the lane, lose your exit the lane protection at the bag" concept.  I asked the lead rules instructor at the MiLB Training Academy does MLB/MiLB use the Evan's or Wedelstedt as guidance or official interpretations and he scoffed "absolutely not".

Having said that, fully half of the newly minted MiLB umpires come out of the Wedelstedt school and ALL of the MLB umpires are from either Wendelstedt or Evans, they all probably have different interpretations of the rule.  Evans talks about the quality throw and Wendelstedt teaches could reasonably retire the runner.

I believe this play is a great example of why the Wendestedt interpretation should be the norm.

[maven]

1 hour ago, johnpatrick said:

Evans talks about the quality throw and Wendelstedt teaches could reasonably retire the runner.

I don't get the distinction: by 'quality throw' Evans means one that could reasonably retire the runner. Gil seems to think that the interps are substantially different, and I don't see it.

He also used 'authoritarian' when I think he meant 'authoritative,' unless he thinks Wendelstedt is the Putin of baseball interpretations.

I also don't see the point of the LAA protest, which seems to turn on judgment not rule application. Scioscia (who has protested over this rule before, and lost) seems to think that being out of the running lane is sufficient for RLI, and it isn't, as there must also be hindrance of the fielder taking the throw. When PU rules no hindrance, that's a judgment call that is not protestable.

[johnpatrick]

1 hour ago, maven said:

I don't get the distinction: by 'quality throw' Evans means one that could reasonably retire the runner. Gil seems to think that the interps are substantially different, and I don't see it.

I believe by quality throw, Evans mean one that could have been reasonably fielded by the fielder.  A bounced throw could be one, but one that is way wide or sails over the fielder's head isn't.  I think this play demonstrated a quality throw under MY interpretation of Evan's words, yet would not be one that could have retired the runner under Wedelstedt's interpretation.

Edit: Upon watching the play again, I can easily see it ruled not a quality throw being so far to the inside.

[tpatience]

3 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

This is a great write-up on this play.  It seems that many umpires don't understand the "run the whole way out of the lane, lose your exit the lane protection at the bag" concept.  I asked the lead rules instructor at the MiLB Training Academy does MLB/MiLB use the Evan's or Wedelstedt as guidance or official interpretations and he scoffed "absolutely not".

Having said that, fully half of the newly minted MiLB umpires come out of the Wedelstedt school and ALL of the MLB umpires are from either Wendelstedt or Evans, they all probably have different interpretations of the rule.  Evans talks about the quality throw and Wendelstedt teaches could reasonably retire the runner.

I believe this play is a great example of why the Wendestedt interpretation should be the norm.

Evans school doesnt exist anymore

[maven]

29 minutes ago, tpatience said:

Evans school doesnt exist anymore

But Evans does.

[Rich Ives]

It looks like the runner may have been beyond the glove when the ball hit the glove. The throw knocked the glove off F3's hand.  

Methinks a late throw.

[basejester]

I think a legitimate basis of protest is the question, 'Does "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base . . ." end when the BR touches first base?'  I assume yes, but this cannot be waved away as a judgement call. 

[Rich Ives]

59 minutes ago, basejester said:

I think a legitimate basis of protest is the question, 'Does "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base . . ." end when the BR touches first base?'  I assume yes, but this cannot be waved away as a judgement call. 

The judgement is did it interfere with the fielder taking the throw? I say no as the runner got there first.

[Kevin_K]

If the actions of the runner prohibit the fielder from catching a quality throw and the offense benefits (like having two runs score) from the uncaught throw, should RLI apply to mitigate the actions of the BR?

[maven]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

If the actions of the runner prohibit the fielder from catching a quality throw

We're looking for hindrance, not prohibition.

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

and the offense benefits

This is irrelevant. We don't adjust our rulings based on outcomes. That's a very slippery slope.

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

should RLI apply to mitigate the actions of the BR?

We don't mitigate anything. If his action was illegal, we apply the appropriate penalty. In the judgment of the calling umpire, the BR's actions were legal, so any penalty would be inappropriate.

[basejester]

3 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

The judgement is did it interfere with the fielder taking the throw? I say no as the runner got there first.

How does "the runner got there first" imply that he did not interfere with the fielder taking the throw?

[noumpere]

10 minutes ago, basejester said:

How does "the runner got there first" imply that he did not interfere with the fielder taking the throw?

Because the running lane ends at first base and if the runner gets to first before the hindrance, there can be no RLI.

 

(said without watching the video)

[Rich Ives]

8 minutes ago, basejester said:

How does "the runner got there first" imply that he did not interfere with the fielder taking the throw?

The ball hit the fielder's glove after the runner passed the fielder. The glove was behind Mondesi's back.  The ball hit the fielder in the glove and knocked the glove off his hand.  How can you interfere if you are already past the "gloving" place?

[basejester]

37 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

The ball hit the fielder's glove after the runner passed the fielder. The glove was behind Mondesi's back.  The ball hit the fielder in the glove and knocked the glove off his hand.  How can you interfere if you are already past the "gloving" place?

I see the batter's helmet on the ground.  About 1:10, I see the second baseman raise his hands with (with the glove on) to invite a relay throw from right field.  I hear the announcers say the glove was knocked off.

The argument could be that the fielder couldn't reach into the space that the BR occupied prior to the ball's arrival to receive the throw.  The interference wouldn't have to be at the time the batter-runner was struck.  (Again, I don't have RLI on this play, but I can imagine things to talk about on this play.)

   

 

[Lindsay]

MLB has denied the Angels' formal protest. No explanation was given.

...Which is why I wrote one up... At the end of the day, I think they went with the "judgment call" reason for denying the protest rather than a rules-related/interpretation reason, though it's still a fun discussion to consider the interpretation issue for an noncompliant BR who is at or nearly at first base as the throw arrives. @maven, I don't believe Evans & Wendelstedt are different in their approaches the fielder's throw, but Wendelstedt does make it a point to say what the specific criterion we're looking for is (reasonably retire the runner, as opposed to whether the throw is true). I think Wendelstedt provides more of an explanation for the throw, not that it is necessarily different than what Evans has written.

[johnpatrick]

12 hours ago, Gil said:

 I think Wendelstedt provides more of an explanation for the throw, not that it is necessarily different than what Evans has written.

I spoke to my MiLB buddy (not a Wendelstedt graduate) and he completely agrees with this statement.  He felt that Evan's quality throw included the caveat of retiring the runner as well.  So he felt there was no difference in the Evan's/Wendelstedt interpretations.