Runner Lane Interference

[johnnyg08]

Some nice camera angles here to show Runner Lane Interference

 

[noumpere]

very close to the similar play from earlier this week(?) where the "interference" didn't happen until after the runner reached first.  You can see in the last view that the ball hit the runner just before the foot came down on the base.

[johnnyg08]

Camera angles are much, much better on this play.

[Stk004]

Sadly I was there last night. I had to explain to my friend what happened and listen to the crowd cheer as O'Malley got all the way to 3rd knowing he was already out. A steady chorus of incompetent boos followed. 

[HokieUmp]

23 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Sadly I was there last night. I had to explain to my friend what happened and listen to the crowd cheer as O'Malley got all the way to 3rd knowing he was already out. A steady chorus of incompetent boos followed. 

People booed incompetently?  How does that go?   "OOOOOOB!   OOOOOOOOOOOB!!"

[Lindsay]

They were saying Boo-urns.

[Blake Ahlers]

I saw the follow up on MLB network.  There was a bunch of rambling on how the lane is on the right side of the bag and what is the runner supposed to do.  Never mind the fact that he ran the entire 90' on the grass.

[UMP45]

On 8/2/2016 at 9:07 AM, noumpere said:

very close to the similar play from earlier this week(?) where the "interference" didn't happen until after the runner reached first.  You can see in the last view that the ball hit the runner just before the foot came down on the base.

What does the position of the foot have to do with it?

[Thunderheads]

5 hours ago, Blake Ahlers said:

I saw the follow up on MLB network.  There was a bunch of rambling on how the lane is on the right side of the bag and what is the runner supposed to do.  Never mind the fact that he ran the entire 90' on the grass.

This pissed me off big-time!  First, they say "that's a terrible call!" ...then they go on to explain how they don't like the rule as it doesn't make sense, blah blah blah .....

Well, that's different.  The call was dead-nuts on point, ...if you don't like the rule, discuss it, and why it's bad, don't start the segment by ripping the umpire?!  I was disappointed as I like Harold Reynolds, he's typically pretty sensible when discussing rules/ umpires etc .... of course Bill Ripken is a douche always when it comes to rules ....whatever ...... 

[Blake Ahlers]

Exactly Thunderheads.  Although, they do make a valid point in that the base is entirely in fair territory, whereas the runner's lane is entirely in foul.  They forget, however, that the runner is allowed to exit the lane to touch the base.  But, you cannot run the entire 90' in foul and expect to be granted leniency right at the base.   

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, Blake Ahlers said:

Exactly Thunderheads.  Although, they do make a valid point in that the base is entirely in fair territory, whereas the runner's lane is entirely in foul.  They forget, however, that the runner is allowed to exit the lane to touch the base.  But, you cannot run the entire 90' in foul and expect to be granted leniency right at the base.   

Yup! @Blake Ahlers ..... the rule as written is strange (not our problem) ....but if you look at it, the rule, the running lane, etc, .... it's uncoordinated to do what the rule says you should do ......

[noumpere]

36 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

What does the position of the foot have to do with it?

The running lane ends at the base.  Once the runner reaches the base he can't commit RLI. (I suppose there could be some discussion about whether it's the foot, or the body, reaching first that matters for this call.)

[Blake Ahlers]

15 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Yup! @Blake Ahlers ..... the rule as written is strange (not our problem) ....but if you look at it, the rule, the running lane, etc, .... it's uncoordinated to do what the rule says you should do ......

Is the runner allowed to run on the foul line?  If so, that's not uncoordinated at all, and will lead you easily to the base.

[Stk004]

33 minutes ago, Blake Ahlers said:

Is the runner allowed to run on the foul line?  If so, that's not uncoordinated at all, and will lead you easily to the base.

Yes. 

[Richvee]

16 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

This pissed me off big-time!  First, they say "that's a terrible call!" ...then they go on to explain how they don't like the rule as it doesn't make sense, blah blah blah .....

Well, that's different.  The call was dead-nuts on point, ...if you don't like the rule, discuss it, and why it's bad, don't start the segment by ripping the umpire?!  I was disappointed as I like Harold Reynolds, he's typically pretty sensible when discussing rules/ umpires etc .... of course Bill Ripken is a douche always when it comes to rules ....whatever ...... 

I usually like Reynolds too. The running lane rule is his pet peeve. He wants it abolished and he will willingly lead the crusade. Problem is, he can't discuss it rationally because it's obvious he doesn't completely understand it.  Agree 100% about Bill Ripken. 100% DB. His utter disdain for umpires is obvious and repulsive.....As is his lack of rules knowledge. 

[udbrky]

Reynolds makes no sense half the time. I think it was during this year's draft coverage that he said "most people his age are 20". I think he's meaning year in school, or most people his age are SO or something, but he says a lot of weird stuff.

 

The best thing Bill Ripken ever did was pose for a baseball card with F---- Face on the knob of the bat.