Runner Lane Interference

[johnnyg08]

 

[agdz59]

"That is not a good call"?  Looked right to me.

[lawump]

26 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

"That is not a good call"?  Looked right to me.

"I don't understand the rules, so I just say 'that is not a good call'."  Geez, what a tool.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, lawump said:

"I don't understand the rules, so I just say 'that is not a good call'."  Geez, what a tool.

Sums it up nicely. 

[Jimurray]

I’m confused. The runner out of the lane did not interfere with F3 catching  the throw although he could have. The batter was called  out, right? What is the interference?

[The Man in Blue]

It was the difference of letting the runner on third score and the other runner advance (if it were a routine out) versus putting them back on first and third.

 

Gil has a nice write-up/explanation over at Close Call Sports ... https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/06/mlb-ejection-095-tripp-gibson-2-brandon.html

 

Essentially, the running lane violation triggered a dead ball before the play at first happened.

[Jimurray]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

It was the difference of letting the runner on third score and the other runner advance (if it were a routine out) versus putting them back on first and third.

So with no interference, batter still out after trying to interfere, as happens most of the time in any baseball venue, runner running inside but thrown out anyway, why would INT be called? The batter was out, he did not succeed on interfering with F3 taking the throw. Unless I did not skim enough. CCS went above and beyond and rationalized a kicked call. It downgrades their site in my mind.

[The Man in Blue]

The interference did not occur on the play at first ... the act of running outside of the lane the entire way is the interference (by rule).

Since he ran outside the lane the entire distance, it was a dead ball and the play at first “never happened”.  Gil’s write up explains it very well.  I don’t think CCS was calling it a “kicked call” ... that is a voting function for readers.

 

EDIT: the article says “correct call” and the voting is 21 correct vs. 1 incorrect.  I swear when I looked just a few minutes ago it said “0 correct, 1 incorrect” ... odd.

[umpstu]

29 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So with no interference, batter still out after trying to interfere, as happens most of the time in any baseball venue, runner running inside but thrown out anyway, why would INT be called? The batter was out, he did not succeed on interfering with F3 taking the throw. Unless I did not skim enough. CCS went above and beyond and rationalized a kicked call. It downgrades their site in my mind.

Would the pitcher have had to throw a crappy throw if the runner was in the lane?  Would the first baseman have to make the play he did had the BR been in the lane?  I mean, he could have just stretched and caught it pretty easily from my viewpoint.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So with no interference, batter still out after trying to interfere, as happens most of the time in any baseball venue, runner running inside but thrown out anyway, why would INT be called? The batter was out, he did not succeed on interfering with F3 taking the throw. Unless I did not skim enough. CCS went above and beyond and rationalized a kicked call. It downgrades their site in my mind.

I am not convinced the batter was out.  F3 came off the bag, and I don't see clear evidence of a tag.

 

So, my guess is that this is what triggered the umpire confab (heck, maybe even the offense asked for a review -- we can see that the dugout is reviewing the play), and led to the RLI call.  If BR was clearly out, then no RLI and the play stands.

[agdz59]

22 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I am not convinced the batter was out.  F3 came off the bag, and I don't see clear evidence of a tag.

 

So, my guess is that this is what triggered the umpire confab (heck, maybe even the offense asked for a review -- we can see that the dugout is reviewing the play), and led to the RLI call.  If BR was clearly out, then no RLI and the play stands.

If what you say is correct, that contradicts the "no play at 1st because the RLI killed the ball before there was a play."  IE: delay or immediate dead ball? NFHS has this as an immediate dead ball - the play at first never happened. I don't think OBR is different here is it? Don't have the rule book handy.

[johnnyg08]

39 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

If what you say is correct, that contradicts the "no play at 1st because the RLI killed the ball before there was a play."  IE: delay or immediate dead ball? NFHS has this as an immediate dead ball - the play at first never happened. I don't think OBR is different here is it? Don't have the rule book handy.

On RLI, it's dead at the TOI. But RLI is a bit different which is what makes this play unique. 

This play is rare because the F3 actually caught the thrown ball. Typically, we judge this to not be RLI because of that reason. 

 

 

[noumpere]

50 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

If what you say is correct, that contradicts the "no play at 1st because the RLI killed the ball before there was a play."  IE: delay or immediate dead ball? NFHS has this as an immediate dead ball - the play at first never happened. I don't think OBR is different here is it? Don't have the rule book handy.

Yes, the ball is dead at the moment of RLI.  But, sometimes, you don't know it's RLI until "later" and then you go back and retroactively apply the dead ball.

 

It's far better to retroactively apply it later, then it is to call it prematurely and try to fix it.

[johnnyg08]

I think the piece some are missing here is not necessarily whether the B/R is safe or out at first base, but the penalty associated w/ RLI in returning R3 back to 3B, wiping the run. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

If what you say is correct, that contradicts the "no play at 1st because the RLI killed the ball before there was a play."  IE: delay or immediate dead ball? NFHS has this as an immediate dead ball - the play at first never happened. I don't think OBR is different here is it? Don't have the rule book handy.

NFHS ignors RLI if the act doesn’t interfere as when the throw is caught and the batter is out. 

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I think the piece some are missing here is not necessarily whether the B/R is safe or out at first base, but the penalty associated w/ RLI in returning R3 back to 3B, wiping the run. 

If the batter was out, as indicated by U1, there was no RLI. I like @noumpere's take that they reviewed and had the batter safe and then you can judge that RLI caused that. But if you like CCS take (rationalization) that being out of the lane is an immediate dead ball and no play takes place at 1B then they are going to have to go back and review a lot of plays at 1B where the batter was out of the lane and the out was made anyway. From high school thru pro batters often run in a direct line to 1B, being out of the lane, and catchers routinely throw them out "inside". We don't call RLI on them even though they forced a throw away from the base.

[Rich Ives]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The interference did not occur on the play at first ... the act of running outside of the lane the entire way is the interference (by rule).

Since he ran outside the lane the entire distance, it was a dead ball and the play at first “never happened”.  Gil’s write up explains it very well.  I don’t think CCS was calling it a “kicked call” ... that is a voting function for readers.

 

EDIT: the article says “correct call” and the voting is 21 correct vs. 1 incorrect.  I swear when I looked just a few minutes ago it said “0 correct, 1 incorrect” ... odd.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Vegas_Ump]

The runner running outside the lane is NOT interference.....yet!

There are three criteria that must be met:  1.  The runner is running out of the lane.  2.  The REASON that the play was not completed was BECAUSE the runner was outside of the lane.  3.  The throw to first must be a "quality" throw.  [Most of the time, you never get all 3 criteria, so that's why it's rarely called.]

IMO, the reason that the play was not complete at first--although the initial call suggested that the runner was retired 1-3, but replay showed the fielder off the bag--, was because the fielder did not have the ball with his foot on the bag.  So the quality of the throw comes into question.  (Not sure if U1 felt the tag was applied in time......perhaps he did.)

Add to this the fact that the announcers didn't have a clue, and they were trying to justify or unjustify the ultimate call.  I do not know which umpire called 3-foot lane violation (probably the PU); but if he did, he owned it.  And that--for better or worse--makes the call correct.  And (as the ruling link points out) the INT occurred before the play at first, so it kills the ball and renders all else moot.

Mike

Las Vegas

Edited June 17, 2019 by Vegas_Ump
Added to rule interp.

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I don’t know what more to tell you.  

[Lou B]

Running outside the running lane "means nothing" unless, by doing so, the batter/runner interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.

So, for example, if the pitcher had thrown the ball a couple of feet the left of first the fielder could have just reached out and caught the throw, the runner would have been out and there would be no RLI even though the runner was out of the lane the whole way.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I don’t know what more to tell you.  

See the other posts. Just running outside the lane is not in and of itself interference.

[lawump]

F3 had to make an athletic play to receive the throw; the B/R being out of the running lane certainly hindered his ability to receive the throw from F1.  He just happens to be a world-class athlete (he's an MLB player) who made a professional play.  

The issue, however, which Gil discusses at CCS but which has not been raised in this thread so far...is what happens if the PU does not call the RLI and the offense then asks for a replay of the call at first.  Now as the on-field MLB umpire, you don't know whether or not the replay will uphold your partner's call at first base.  If the play does get challenged, and replay does overturn the call to "safe", you're now screwed as you can't use replay to overturn a RLI non-call.  

Simply put, an MLB umpire can't just say "well, my partner called him out so I'll let any possible RLI slide," because the call may be overturned two minutes later by replay.  We continue to live in the land of unintended consequences caused by replay.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

F3 had to make an athletic play to receive the throw; the B/R being out of the running lane certainly hindered his ability to receive the throw from F1.  He just happens to be a world-class athlete (he's an MLB player) who made a professional play.  

The issue, however, which Gil discusses at CCS but which has not been raised in this thread so far...is what happens if the PU does not call the RLI and the offense then asks for a replay of the call at first.  Now as the on-field MLB umpire, you don't know whether or not the replay will uphold your partner's call at first base.  If the play does get challenged, and replay does overturn the call to "safe", you're now screwed as you can't use replay to overturn a RLI non-call.  

Simply put, an MLB umpire can't just say "well, my partner called him out so I'll let any possible RLI slide," because the call may be overturned two minutes later by replay.  We continue to live in the land of unintended consequences caused by replay.

Are we sure that's not what happened when they conferenced? There is nothing showing Gibson calling RLI. So when they get together and U1 gets the off the base info and agrees to reverse his call to safe Gibson then says I had RLI since he was safe.

[Tborze]

On June 17, 2019 at 9:25 AM, agdz59 said:

If what you say is correct, that contradicts the "no play at 1st because the RLI killed the ball before there was a play."  IE: delay or immediate dead ball? NFHS has this as an immediate dead ball - the play at first never happened. I don't think OBR is different here is it? Don't have the rule book handy.

 

On June 17, 2019 at 10:07 AM, johnnyg08 said:

On RLI, it's dead at the TOI. But RLI is a bit different which is what makes this play unique. 

This play is rare because the F3 actually caught the thrown ball. Typically, we judge this to not be RLI because of that reason. 

 

 

Looking for clarification. 

OBR-RLI is TOP in this situation. Runners return. 

FED-TOI, always. So R3 scores in this situation in FED. 

?

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Tborze said:

 

Looking for clarification. 

OBR-RLI is TOP in this situation. Runners return. 

FED-TOI, always. So R3 scores in this situation in FED. 

?

By rule, in FED, you would be correct, which is crazy, but FED is TOI