MLB Ejection 159 - Greg Gibson (1; Ned Yost)

[Gil 347]

1B Umpire Greg Gibson ejected Royals Manager Ned Yost (runner's lane interference no-call by HP Umpire Pat Hoberg; QOCY) in the top of the 5th inning of the #STLCards-#Royals game. With two out and none on, Cardinals batter Kolten Wong hit a 1-2 curveball from Royals pitcher Glenn Sparkman on the...

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

View the full article

[Thunderheads 2,703]

Quality of throw (QoT) is only a provision in OBR, and NCAA, yes?   

If I remember correctly, FED does not look at QoT ??

@maven @Senor Azul    .......... Thanks!

[maven 4,435]

15 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Quality of throw (QoT) is only a provision in OBR, and NCAA, yes?   

If I remember correctly, FED does not look at QoT ??

@maven @Senor Azul    .......... Thanks!

No claims about NCAA.

It's not a "provision" of OBR, because it's not in the rule. 'Quality throw' is part of the interpretation of "interferes with the fielder taking the throw," as a crap throw that the fielder would not have caught anyway cannot in principle be interfered with. This is a judgment call, and Clever Ned got himself tossed arguing a judgment call.

And although the FED language is comparable—the interference is, uniquely, with the fielder taking not making the throw—the interpretation, as you say Jeff, is different. We want a play like Wong's ruled RLI even if it's not a quality throw. Gil points out this fact in one of his graphics in that video.

The FED interp basically expands the rule to include hindrance of the fielder making the throw, assuming that the fielder does not want to drill the runner in the back. So there's a safety rationale to the interp that pro ball does not prioritize.

[Thunderheads 2,703]

11 minutes ago, maven said:

No claims about NCAA.

It's not a "provision" of OBR, because it's not in the rule. 'Quality throw' is part of the interpretation of "interferes with the fielder taking the throw," as a crap throw that the fielder would not have caught anyway cannot in principle be interfered with.

And although the FED language is comparable—the interference is, uniquely, with the fielder taking not making the throw—the interpretation, as you say Jeff, is different. We want a play like Wong's ruled RLI even if it's not a quality throw. Gil points out this fact in one of his graphics in that video.

The FED interp basically expands the rule to include hindrance of the fielder making the throw, assuming that the fielder does not want to drill the runner in the back. So there's a safety rationale to the interp that pro ball does not prioritize.

Thank you for this .... yeah, I thought "provision" may not be correct here ....should have gone w/ my gut instinct

Gil mentions that Wong is 'fine' at the 45 mark, but I noticed he moves back "in" as he gets closer.  I was thinking in FED, yes, this is RLI based on Wong's movements.

AGREE?

ON EDIT:  I see the wording/diagram at the bottom of the screen now that you referenced above, ... I'm good!

[Biscuit 66]

Maybe this is just me being a homer, but was the video shortened in editing? The hook seems real quick seeing as Ned never left his position. Obviously don't know what he said though. 

[Aging_Arbiter 1,211]

[grayhawk 3,571]

No claims about NCAA.
It's not a "provision" of OBR, because it's not in the rule. 'Quality throw' is part of the interpretation of "interferes with the fielder taking the throw," as a crap throw that the fielder would not have caught anyway cannot in principle be interfered with. This is a judgment call, and Clever Ned got himself tossed arguing a judgment call.
And although the FED language is comparable—the interference is, uniquely, with the fielder taking not making the throw—the interpretation, as you say Jeff, is different. We want a play like Wong's ruled RLI even if it's not a quality throw. Gil points out this fact in one of his graphics in that video.
The FED interp basically expands the rule to include hindrance of the fielder making the throw, assuming that the fielder does not want to drill the runner in the back. So there's a safety rationale to the interp that pro ball does not prioritize.

NCAA is the same as Fed.

[Thunderheads 2,703]

It's always good to refresh, so while it's on topic, let's do that as a sanity check:

Let's look at 8-4-1 (g) The batter-runner is out when:

OK ... so ....the infraction is ignored if it's to avoid a fielder making a play on a batted ball, .... GOT IT.     ~OR~ if the act does not interfere with a fielder or throw.

NOW - .... wouldn't this include a poor throw to first?  BR can't interfere w/ a crap throw (as long as he's not trying to throw around the runner) ... RIGHT?   AND, if so .... then it's not 'automatic' when BR is outside the lane (not that I thought it was) but it's interpreted that quality of throw doesn't matter w/ FED.

Am I thinking too much here?

[opens window and creeps out to the edge and looks down]

[maven 4,435]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

OK ... so ....the infraction is ignored if it's to avoid a fielder making a play on a batted ball, .... GOT IT.     ~OR~ if the act does not interfere with a fielder or throw.

NOW - .... wouldn't this include a poor throw to first?  BR can't interfere w/ a crap throw (as long as he's not trying to throw around the runner) ... RIGHT?   AND, if so .... then it's not 'automatic' when BR is outside the lane (not that I thought it was) but it's interpreted that quality of throw doesn't matter w/ FED.

The "does not interfere with a fielder or throw" clause is NOT interpreted to rule out a crap throw. It's interpreted to rule out NO throw, or a throw that's way too late to retire the runner, or the like.

Also, I really like your suggestion that a "sanity check" involves reviewing the rulebook.

[grayhawk 3,571]

2004 NFHS Interpretations:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)
 

[Thunderheads 2,703]

7 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

2004 NFHS Interpretations:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)
 

OK Thanks Steve, that's what I was thinking .... but threw it out here for a little more discussion ...  perfect analogy! THANKS!

[Thunderheads 2,703]

39 minutes ago, maven said:

The "does not interfere with a fielder or throw" clause is NOT interpreted to rule out a crap throw. It's interpreted to rule out NO throw, or a throw that's way too late to retire the runner, or the like.

Also, I really like your suggestion that a "sanity check" involves reviewing the rulebook.

thanks ....

Yes, ... just when you think to yourself ... "yeah, I know 8-4-1 .... that's when it blows up on you"     OR ... you read it through thoroughly and catch something new

 

[grayhawk 3,571]

From an NCAA perspective, Tom Hiler said this was RLI for interfering with F1's throw.

[Thunderheads 2,703]

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

From an NCAA perspective, Tom Hiler said this was RLI for interfering with F1's throw.

I would concur ... from a FED perspective too

[Richvee 2,172]

5 hours ago, grayhawk said:

2004 NFHS Interpretations:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)
 

I’m going to assume they mean B1 is running in foul territory and to the right of the running lane. Otherwise he’s  in the lane and obviously there’s no violation. 

And just to be clear, FED says no RLV here because the position of the BR, even though out of the running lane,  was not the reason for F2’s bad throw. 

[grayhawk 3,571]

18 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I’m going to assume they mean B1 is running in foul territory and to the right of the running lane. Otherwise he’s  in the lane and obviously there’s no violation. 

And just to be clear, FED says no RLV here because the position of the BR, even though out of the running lane,  was not the reason for F2’s bad throw. 

Right, which should debunk the myth that ANY bad throw, while the BR is out of the runner's lane, is cause for RLI.