Game 4 - RLI No Call

[Larry in TN]

What was missing for RLI on the B-6th play that led to the game's first run being scored?

Looks like the BR was clearly out of the lane.  Left foot completely in fair territory and right foot--at best--on the line.

Runner was in the way preventing the throw from being caught at 1B.

 

[ricka56]

Quality of the throw was questionable...to the right of BR. But I thought the benefit of the doubt should have gone to the defense. 

[boyinr]

I thought the Red Sox should have at least asked for video review. They said that Cora spoke to Ted Barrett. I thought it was RLI at the time of the play and nothing I saw on replay convince me it wasn't.  That might have been my rooting interests coming out and clouding judgement. after all, I am still "convinced" that Armbrister interfered with Fisk in the 1975 WS. 

https://www.mlb.com/video/turner-scores-on-error-in-6th/c-2518182983?tid=63106348

 

[maven]

10 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

What was missing for RLI on the B-6th play that led to the game's first run being scored?

PU judgment that it was RLI.

[Lou B]

Looked like RLI to me but as a Sox fan I could be biased!

By the way, RLI is not reviewable!  I guess he could have asked to talk to one of the other umps?

Speaking of plays at first, how many times is Machado going to be allowed to step on/kick  the first baseman's foot?

He had the whole base open but chose to step on Pierce's heel - bush league play.

[Larry in TN]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

PU judgment that it was RLI.

How would you break down the elements of RLI on that play, Maven?

The only thing I see is that the throw could have been better but wasn't it good enough to retire the BR if not for him being in the way?  I don't think a perfect throw is required to get an RLI call.

 

[dumbdumb]

3 hours ago, boyinr said:

I thought the Red Sox should have at least asked for video review. They said that Cora spoke to Ted Barrett. I thought it was RLI at the time of the play and nothing I saw on replay convince me it wasn't.  That might have been my rooting interests coming out and clouding judgement. after all, I am still "convinced" that Armbrister interfered with Fisk in the 1975 WS. 

https://www.mlb.com/video/turner-scores-on-error-in-6th/c-2518182983?tid=63106348

 

So a Larry Barnett fan you would not be. But Larry was a supervisor for 2000-2001, and would have been instrumental in the hiring of Tim Timmons during the 2001 season full time, as the replacement for Al Clarke. And you did get off on the right foot with a win to start the Series with Timmons behind the plate.

Seems like? there might be some "last step", interpretation/provision/clarification to try and help with the judgement of making this call determination, since the entire base is totally in fair, and 15 inches of fair territory at that.

That being said, at some point there will always be that grey area that stands, when there is no clear cut yes or no as to what is seen.

Others with superior knowledge can weigh in on the fact or myth of a last step provision and when that step comes into play exactly, or if there even is a last step provision.

Oops, check out ccs analysis that went up.
.

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

So a Larry Barnett fan you would not be. But Larry was a supervisor for 2000-2001, and would have been instrumental in the hiring of Tim Timmons during the 2001 season full time, as the replacement for Al Clarke. And you did get off on the right foot with a win to start the Series with Timmons behind the plate.

Seems like? there might be some "last step", interpretation/provision/clarification to try and help with the judgement of making this call determination, since the entire base is totally in fair, and 15 inches of fair territory at that.

That being said, at some point there will always be that grey area that stands, when there is no clear cut yes or no as to what is seen.

Others with superior knowledge can weigh in on the fact or myth of a last step provision and when that step comes into play exactly, or if there even is a last step provision.
.

There is a "last step, stride or slide" interp that allows a runner who has run legally to go fair to touch the base. That wouldn't apply in this case. But I think the PU judged the runner had touched the base when the ball got there. Technically, a runner would not have to exit the lane to touch 1B. The foul line is considered part of the lane, making the lane a little more than 3' wide and giving a 3 or 4 inch part of 1B free to touch without exiting the lane. But if you've paid attention during the series every runner who dropped or dribbled a ball close to HP has run illegally out of the lane. In all but this case the defense made the play, maybe because the location of the ball allowed a throwing lane without adjustment. But, I again advocate eliminating the lane rule. There is a history of proper and improper or debatable calls and no calls. It seems the pros are taking the odds the the defense won't be hindered or the ump won't call it and telling runners to go direct to 1B from their initial position.

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, boyinr said:

I thought the Red Sox should have at least asked for video review. They said that Cora spoke to Ted Barrett. I thought it was RLI at the time of the play and nothing I saw on replay convince me it wasn't.  That might have been my rooting interests coming out and clouding judgement. after all, I am still "convinced" that Armbrister interfered with Fisk in the 1975 WS. 

https://www.mlb.com/video/turner-scores-on-error-in-6th/c-2518182983?tid=63106348

 

I don't think RLV is a reviewable play. I have no dog in this fight, and I had RLV live and I still do after all the replays. The fact that the ball hits Bellinger as he's touching 1B is irrelevant, IMO. the throw was catchable had Bellinger not been there. Bellinger also hinders Pierce from stretching for the ball. This hindrance, along with the fact that Bellinger runs the entire length  inside the foul line means he doesn't get the benefit of "last step in fair territory to reach the base" exception. This all adds up to RLV being the correct cal. 

Sometimes the baseball Gods fix things, as they did last when they made Roberts take out a guy throwing a one hitter with a 4 run lead, who had just struck out a batter with still-nasty stuff, who hadn't allowed a runner to reach 2B all night. I don't get it. Worse case scenario, he gives up a 2 run bomb,  now you're up 4-2, now take him out. But like I said, baseball karma..... 

[maven]

5 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

How would you break down the elements of RLI on that play, Maven?

The only thing I see is that the throw could have been better but wasn't it good enough to retire the BR if not for him being in the way?  I don't think a perfect throw is required to get an RLI call.

I think they're all there, but PU didn't.

1. Runner out of lane
2. Quality throw
3. Hindrance of fielder taking the throw

I wonder how this call was graded.

PU was ruling on the tag at HP and got to the BR late. U1 had a weak angle on RLI, but might have had info if asked.

[ricka56]

That play wasn't eligible for replay review, but it was eligible for an on-field crew review. They might have been able to piece this play back together and save PU who was as busy as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest on that batted ball.

[stkjock]

Gil did a big write up on this 

 

https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/10/runners-lane-interference-2018-world.html

 

[grayhawk]

When I saw it live, it looked to me like Bellinger touched the base prior to the ball reaching F3, and nothing on replay shows otherwise.  Would a true throw have retired Bellinger?  It's possible.  However, F3 was taking the throw inside and the throw tailed out, preventing F3 from being able to stretch to receive it.  There is some validity to giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense on this play, but I am okay with the no call.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. grayhawk, Gil Imber addressed in his analysis the issue you just raised.

The Catcher's Throw: …Because the throw arrives at the position Pearce would have tried to assume had Bellinger not interfered at about the same time that Bellinger arrived at first base, it follows that, yes, the throw could have reasonably retired the runner if not for the runner's interference with the fielder taking the throw. It would be a bang-bang play to be sure, but we're not concerned with calling anyone "safe" or "out" at this point. We're just looking for whether the throw could have reasonably retired the runner.

Timing: This may mean that the umpire has to consider a fielder stretching to catch a ball in front of first base, such that RLI can actually occur in front of the bag, and before the ball physically arrives at the base itself. Just because the runner has touched first base before the ball doesn't mean he has suddenly reached a safe zone and is protected from RLI... Interference can still be called on a runner based on his actions prior to his arrival, and before the ball actually arrives at his location. Remember the golden rule...contact is not a requirement for interference or obstruction, and interference can occur prior to, or in the absence of, actual contact.

 

[ricka56]

The Red Sox came back and made this play a moot point for baseball fans. But if the 4-0 Dodgers score had held up, this play would have become as big as any controversial WS umpire call. Maybe it was Alex Cora's inexperience, but he should have insisted that the crew get together and piece that play back together (like in the old-old days before IR reviews). Joe Madden would have insisted on that. It is a one of the unintended consequences of relying on technology that would have been fun to watch play out.  

...though, I would have hated to see the villianization of the PU that would have accompanied it. 

[ricka56]

12 hours ago, grayhawk said:

When I saw it live, it looked to me like Bellinger touched the base prior to the ball reaching F3, and nothing on replay shows otherwise.  Would a true throw have retired Bellinger?  It's possible.  However, F3 was taking the throw inside and the throw tailed out, preventing F3 from being able to stretch to receive it.  There is some validity to giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense on this play, but I am okay with the no call.

I find it amusing that a left coast umpire had no RLI in real time and this right coast umpire had RLI in real time. Not throwing shade ...just noting amusement. Though I'd have been less amused had the 4-0 Dodgers score held up. 

...too soon ? 

[grayhawk]

5 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I find it amusing that a left coast umpire had no RLI in real time and this right coast umpire had RLI in real time. Not throwing shade ...just noting amusement. Though I'd have been less amused had the 4-0 Dodgers score held up. 

...too soon ? 

Well, I'm no Dodgers fan so rub it in as much as you want!

[dumbdumb]

10 hours ago, ricka56 said:

The Red Sox came back and made this play a moot point for baseball fans. But if the 4-0 Dodgers score had held up, this play would have become as big as any controversial WS umpire call. Maybe it was Alex Cora's inexperience, but he should have insisted that the crew get together and piece that play back together (like in the old-old days before IR reviews). Joe Madden would have insisted on that. It is a one of the unintended consequences of relying on technology that would have been fun to watch play out.  

...though, I would have hated to see the villianization of the PU that would have accompanied it. 

As you said, since things worked out in the end to make this situation (right or wrong with the call), a nonentity, where very few will ever remember. Some people just live with the Angels, and get out of the questionable call situation which would be brought up forever and ever like Larry Barnetts call.

[ricka56]

10 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Well, I'm no Dodgers fan so rub it in as much as you want!

Killjoy 

[BT_Blue]

On 10/30/2018 at 9:55 AM, grayhawk said:

Well, I'm no Dodgers fan so rub it in as much as you want!

 

On 10/30/2018 at 8:36 PM, ricka56 said:

Killjoy 

Padre fan if memory serves.

[grayhawk]

9 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

 

Padre fan if memory serves.

Angels and Royals

[BT_Blue]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Angels and Royals

just about the same thing!

[humanbackstop19]

So mechanically speaking, did the PU line up the play at the plate correctly before worrying about the follow-up throw to first.  Is there another way to take this type of potential double play scenario with the lead force at home AND line up for potential RLI?  Furthermore, could the RF umpire in this 6-man crew have input on this type of play?  

[Richvee]

I was taught to take force plays at the plate from that spot. You can see the catch, transfer, and touch of the plate from there. Then it’s a matter of a read step to look up the line for RLV.  There was lot going on fast here, plus he had to delay looking up the line because of the late touch of home by F2. As for getting help from U3 of RFU, someone else may know the 6 man mechanic a lot better than I.