Jump to content
andydufresne

RLI Game 6

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

The catch was.  but the catch is at the point where the runner has right to.

Let me see if I can simplify an explanation for you.  Your statement above is 100% correct.  Had Turner run "the last half of the distance between home and first base" (which I believe is a pretty close quote to the rulebook explanation of the runners lane requirement), the call IMHO would probably stood with "safe" as initially indicated, and no RLI.

 

edit: Looks like @Biscuit slid his explanation in (in much greater detail) right before I hit enter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy moley, @ArchAngel72, I haven't seen a flip-flop opinion like that since the last Presidential debate. You went from "It's obviously interference" to "I don't see how it could be interference" in a couple of sentences - hitting every spot between, too.

I've also not seen a more confusing statement as "he didn't interfere with the throw, he interfered with the catch." When exactly does a throw become a catch?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this to the Facebook page, but I'm glad to see the MLB Network is explaining why this is correct. I've always respected Harold Reynolds b/c he is generally fair on umpires and works to further understanding rather being reactionary and jumping on the bash the umpire bandwagon. 

But I doubt tonight we'll see half a buck say he was incorrect. The man needs to lose his job. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Biscuit said:

3. You think he beat the throw

I'm not totally sure on this (if someone could chime in, that'd be great), but I don't think it matters. In this play, the ball gets past the first baseman due to Turner's actions, which would have allowed him to go to second. He still has an advantage due to his illegal actiona.

In addition, he didn't beat the throw. See @johnnyg08's post above for a picture, or watch the play again in slowotion.

 

 

I did watch the slow motion replay . look at johnnyg08's post the third replay in slomo shows it hitting him in the back of his right knee as he hits the bag. Hes ahead of the throw. He beat it.

 

Now he was clearly NOT in the running lane and he did interfere with the catch the 1st baseman was attempting to do.  But did the 1st baseman not reach into the last step area of the bag right in front of the bag?  what path from anywhere going down the line does that leave the runner?  my point is if he had been in the proper base path and had transitioned onto the line path at the last step that same "collison" would have occurred.  Now I will repeat again.

Its a Runner not in his lane violation  I get that.   

 

And Im just playing the "other side " guys cause well I feel for the player and his team. 

But here is another thing.  When is this rule usually used?

A  non caught 3rd strike, possibly a  bunt or dribbled hit that the catcher fields.   The angle of this throw is from near the front of the pitching circle.

As an ex player that Pitcher made a crap throw and the BR should not be penalized because of it.As an Ump I too would have made that call in LL where I am but more likely than not the BR I am dealing with and the 1st baseman would have had a train wreck instead of a knocked off glove.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I did watch the slow motion replay . look at johnnyg08's post the third replay in slomo shows it hitting him in the back of his right knee as he hits the bag. Hes ahead of the throw. He beat it.

 

Now he was clearly NOT in the running lane (Which is what matters)and he did interfere with the catch the 1st baseman was attempting to do (which is why he was called out).  But did the 1st baseman not reach into the last step area of the bag right in front of the bag? (Does NOT matter since BR wasn't in the lane)  what path from anywhere going down the line does that leave the runner? (it's 3 ft wide, and I would say 3.5 ft wide including the width of the lines)  my point is if he had been in the proper base path and had transitioned onto the line path at the last step that same "collison" would have occurred. (And the call would most likely had been safe upon proper enforcement)  Now I will repeat again.

Its a Runner not in his lane violation  I get that.   (We get that you get that)

 

And Im just playing the "other side " guys cause well I feel for the player and his team. ((bad juju as an umpire) never get emotionally involved)

But here is another thing.  When is this rule usually used? (When a BR runs outside of the runners lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw)

A  non caught 3rd strike, possibly a  bunt or dribbled hit that the catcher fields.   The angle of this throw is from near the front of the pitching circle.(Not sure that the rule establishes where the ball MUST be fielded to enforce this rule, but I've been taught that it is "generally" that area in front of home plate)

As an ex player that Pitcher made a crap throw and the BR should not be penalized because of it.As an Ump I too would have made that call in LL where I am but more likely than not the BR I am dealing with and the 1st baseman would have had a train wreck instead of a knocked off glove.

 

@ArchAngel72, I'm confused.  If you "get that", then why are you still trying to rationalize?  While a "devil's advocate" approaching the gray area to things can sometimes be healthy, this is in black and white, explained 3 ways from Sunday and approved by 4 Congressmen & a Pope.  My point being, it is a rule.  As an Umpire, why are you on the field?  To enforce the rule!

 Yes, had he been in the lane, the call would most likely had been different as he would have been doing what he was supposed to do.  By not running in his lane, he is out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

And Im just playing the "other side " guys cause well I feel for the player and his team. 

But here is another thing.  When is this rule usually used?

A  non caught 3rd strike, possibly a  bunt or dribbled hit that the catcher fields.   The angle of this throw is from near the front of the pitching circle.

As an ex player that Pitcher made a crap throw and the BR should not be penalized because of it.As an Ump I too would have made that call in LL where I am but more likely than not the BR I am dealing with and the 1st baseman would have had a train wreck instead of a knocked off glove.

 

I'm not sure umpiring is your calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

And Im just playing the "other side " guys cause well I feel for the player and his team. 

I agree that there can be (and probably should be) discussion on whether the rule should be left as-is or changed.  I'm not sure an orange base is the answer.

 

And, given the difficulty in implementing rule changes, I'm not sure it will be discussed.  But, given the high-visibility this has (as opposed to, say a Tuesday game between the Tigers and the Mariners), it has a shot.  I think most of the players (who don't knwo the rule, I agree) are really arguing from this perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Umpire in Chief said:

But I doubt tonight we'll see half a buck say he was incorrect. The man needs to lose his job. 

I don't think he needs to lose his job any more than an umpire who errs needs to lose his job. What he needs to do is stop pontificating about things (like, e.g., RLI) he doesn't understand.

I get where a lot of these guys are coming from. I've weighed in at length on how far over the edge I think the NCAA has gone in the interps of BI and FPSR. What I've never (I hope) done is have my disdain for the rule cause me to criticize the guy who properly applies and enforces it.

"I hate the rule" is a hundred and ten degrees from "That's a HORRIBLE call. He sucks!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The rule has been no called in similar sits and improperly called in unsimilar sits at all levels. I think the call was proper. But, the disparity in calling this rule is obvious at all levels, called properly, called improperly, not called properly, not called improperly. I submit that what I think I heard Jim Evans say at a clinic is what we should subscribe to. The rule is an anachronism. Change it or eliminate it. Change would be to call a runner out if he wasn’t in the lane by 45’. Eliminate it would require a quality throw and the runner would not be allowed to veer once he saw where the fielder was poised to catch the throw. 

Jim, I am going to respectfully take you to task on this one.

The reason that you don't see this called more often is that you don't have all three criteria necessary to make the call:  runner out of the lane, the reason the play was not complete was solely because the runner WAS out of the lane, and the throw had to be a quality throw.  Most of the time in lower levels of ball, the rule is not enforced because the throws were terrible!  In 33 years, I have seen the call made twice (all Little League baseball, where you would really expect it to happen more often!)  I think the rule is fine!  The education of the players AND the media is what is in order!  [Similar thread on this board above.]

Every time I have seen this play in pro baseball, it has been properly called or no-called correctly by the rules!  I just don't think it needs to be changed!

JMO.

Mike

Las Vegas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The rule has been no called in similar sits and improperly called in unsimilar sits at all levels. I think the call was proper. But, the disparity in calling this rule is obvious at all levels, called properly, called improperly, not called properly, not called improperly. I submit that what I think I heard Jim Evans say at a clinic is what we should subscribe to. The rule is an anachronism. Change it or eliminate it. Change would be to call a runner out if he wasn’t in the lane by 45’. Eliminate it would require a quality throw and the runner would not be allowed to veer once he saw where the fielder was poised to catch the throw. 

In my mind, those suggestions would make the rule more difficult to interpret or enforce. 

I haven't received an acceptable response to why doesn't the runner simply run in the lane that's drawn up for him versus try to change everything. We all know why he's running inside...it's to get hit by the throw. They may never admit it...but that's why they're doing it. 

Want proof? Watch tonight. If there's a play...you will see how easy it is for them to do when they want to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I did watch the slow motion replay . look at johnnyg08's post the third replay in slomo shows it hitting him in the back of his right knee as he hits the bag. Hes ahead of the throw. He beat it.

 

Now he was clearly NOT in the running lane and he did interfere with the catch the 1st baseman was attempting to do.  But did the 1st baseman not reach into the last step area of the bag right in front of the bag?  what path from anywhere going down the line does that leave the runner?  my point is if he had been in the proper base path and had transitioned onto the line path at the last step that same "collison" would have occurred.  Now I will repeat again.

Its a Runner not in his lane violation  I get that.   

 

And Im just playing the "other side " guys cause well I feel for the player and his team. 

But here is another thing.  When is this rule usually used?

A  non caught 3rd strike, possibly a  bunt or dribbled hit that the catcher fields.   The angle of this throw is from near the front of the pitching circle.

As an ex player that Pitcher made a crap throw and the BR should not be penalized because of it.As an Ump I too would have made that call in LL where I am but more likely than not the BR I am dealing with and the 1st baseman would have had a train wreck instead of a knocked off glove.

 

He didn't beat the throw. No F3 above 6U fields the throw at the base. Sorry, but that simply is not true. In the still, the ball would have been caught by F3 had the glove not been dislodged by Turner's interference. 

Also...it's not penalizing a poor throw...the throw was off balance, and right to the base. The rule penalizes the runner...not this perception that the defense must make a perfect throw to exactly where the offense says it has to be...that simply is not the case..

How about this...Turner runs in the prescribed path and none of us are talking about it today?

 

Screen Shot 2019-10-29 at 10.10.05 PM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Jim, I am going to respectfully take you to task on this one.

The reason that you don't see this called more often is that you don't have all three criteria necessary to make the call:  runner out of the lane, the reason the play was not complete was solely because the runner WAS out of the lane, and the throw had to be a quality throw.  Most of the time in lower levels of ball, the rule is not enforced because the throws were terrible!  In 33 years, I have seen the call made twice (all Little League baseball, where you would really expect it to happen more often!)  I think the rule is fine!  The education of the players AND the media is what is in order!  [Similar thread on this board above.]

Every time I have seen this play in pro baseball, it has been properly called or no-called correctly by the rules!  I just don't think it needs to be changed!

JMO.

Mike

Las Vegas

Was this a proper no call?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I haven't received an acceptable response to why doesn't the runner simply run in the lane that's drawn up for him versus try to change everything. We all know why he's running inside...it's to get hit by the throw. They may never admit it...but that's why they're doing it. 

Everything you've said up to this point is spot-on, but I think you're off on this one. They run there not to get hit by the throw, but because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The straight line between a right-handed batters box and 1st base is entirely outside the running lane.

As a matter of fact, I'd say it's more likely (not absolutely true, but more likely) that the fielder threw off-line in order to draw the interference call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kylehutson said:

Everything you've said up to this point is spot-on, but I think you're off on this one. They run there not to get hit by the throw, but because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The straight line between a right-handed batters box and 1st base is entirely outside the running lane.

As a matter of fact, I'd say it's more likely (not absolutely true, but more likely) that the fielder threw off-line in order to draw the interference call.

I appreciate the discussion but I think it's exactly why they run inside. The line is literally a couple inches to the right. 

Yes...we agree that it is the shortest distance...and I will concede that it is likely part of the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I appreciate the discussion but I think it's exactly why they run inside. The line is literally a couple inches to the right. 

Yes...we agree that it is the shortest distance...and I will concede that it is likely part of the reason.

Agreed it is on purpose, just like when they try and get in the way (on the infield side) of the throw home from a third baseman or left fielder when trying to score. They do not mind getting drilled anywhere  in the back of the body since there is no running lane. Getting hit might also allow other runners to advance further on the play.

And it is the catcher who is thinking about doing the drilling of the runner on the ball out in front of the plate, since his avenue to first is the most obstructed, unless he wasted precious time moving farther into the field or towards the dugout to get a better line to the first baseman. The other fielders pretty much throw to the first baseman like on any play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 1:37 AM, johnnyg08 said:

 

they look like the same play to me .........AND NO ...I'm NOT saying the 2019 call was wrong, I believe it was 100% correct ....I'm saying the 2018 call was missed

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kylehutson said:

Everything you've said up to this point is spot-on, but I think you're off on this one. They run there not to get hit by the throw, but because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The straight line between a right-handed batters box and 1st base is entirely outside the running lane.

As a matter of fact, I'd say it's more likely (not absolutely true, but more likely) that the fielder threw off-line in order to draw the interference call.

Smoltz mentioned this during the discussion.  He stated that they were coached to try and hit the runner (not to injure) to try and draw the interference call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

they look like the same play to me .........AND NO ...I'm NOT saying the 2019 call was wrong, I believe it was 100% correct ....I'm saying the 2018 call was missed

Yes. That is exactly my point. It's not that the 2018 call was NOT RLI....it's that that "no call" was incorrect. And I think he got it wrong b/c the previous play at home plate didn't give him time to get into proper position for his secondary responsibilities

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Smoltz mentioned this during the discussion.  He stated that they were coached to try and hit the runner (not to injure) to try and draw the interference call.

Absolutely. And the runner is trying to get hit so he can get on base after his crappy 2ft swinging bunt. In this case though...the defender was trying to successfully retire the runner. Turner is one of the fastest runners in the game. If any of you have tried to make a play like that on a runner who is that fast....and can put the throw right on the base...congrats...it's a very hard play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Umpire in Chief said:

I posted this to the Facebook page, but I'm glad to see the MLB Network is explaining why this is correct. I've always respected Harold Reynolds b/c he is generally fair on umpires and works to further understanding rather being reactionary and jumping on the bash the umpire bandwagon. 

But I doubt tonight we'll see half a buck say he was incorrect. The man needs to lose his job. 

 


Who is the other screwball?  Does he really believe any of that or is he just trying to be “edgy” and this justify his job on TV?  He has some valid points, but they are lost in the sea of “OMG, that’s just wrong, I’m cool and calling it out!”  I have no problem when an umpire error is pointed out, but this crap of “I don’t like it and I don’t know what I am talking about, but I’m going to be loud and vehement because I have a platform and, also, the umpire is awful” is one of the main reasons why I typically don’t watch broadcast sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:


Who is the other screwball?  Does he really believe any of that or is he just trying to be “edgy” and this justify his job on TV?  He has some valid points, but they are lost in the sea of “OMG, that’s just wrong, I’m cool and calling it out!”  I have no problem when an umpire error is pointed out, but this crap of “I don’t like it and I don’t know what I am talking about, but I’m going to be loud and vehement because I have a platform and, also, the umpire is awful” is one of the main reasons why I typically don’t watch broadcast sports.

Mark DeRosa .... .....  douche

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, noumpere said:

I agree that there can be (and probably should be) discussion on whether the rule should be left as-is or changed.  I'm not sure an orange base is the answer.

 

And, given the difficulty in implementing rule changes, I'm not sure it will be discussed.  But, given the high-visibility this has (as opposed to, say a Tuesday game between the Tigers and the Mariners), it has a shot.  I think most of the players (who don't knwo the rule, I agree) are really arguing from this perspective.

I was thinking along the same lines. This is something where popular opinion and pressure could get a rule changed . While the plays are not comparable the popular opinion and pressure had the MLB create the buster Posey rule. 

I'm by no way saying the rule should be changed in this case (though I agree with the Posey rule) and I think the RLI rule serves a well defined and practical purpose. The offense gains an advantage by running inside the lane where they can intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the first baseman's ability to field the ball.  But here's why I think it could be a target for a rule change; baseball is struggling in fan base,  television revenue, tv ratings, etc... and needs to adapt to quell the demands of the fans so it can grow once again. They're doing all they can to satisfy fans demands. They've already doctored the baseballs to get more home runs, Newly designed fields are smaller to get more HRs. The typical baseball fan really doesn't appreciate the beauty of a 0-1 pitchers duel. They call it boring and for some reason they don't think it makes for good TV.

This year's WS has some of the lowest ratings ever. (https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/10/world-series-ratings-record-low-game-four-astros-nationals/) I think this is more telling than it appears. I see people who are a fan of their team (Astros, Nats, Yankees, Orioles, Dodgers...) but much less general fans of baseball. I'm an O's fan and until they get new ownership I don't think I'll see a World Series appearance much less a championship. But I can enjoy watching a baseball game between virtually any two random teams. I may not know many of the players, but I can still get pulled into the game. 

This is also why I see robo umps as inevitable. Not only for the zone but all facets of umpiring. Umpire's presence on the field will become unnecessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Umpire in Chief said:

This year's WS has some of the lowest ratings ever.

It's because of the teams. The ratings sway based on who is in it.

I would also expect games 6 and 7 to have higher viewership than the earlier games. People care more when there's a clench opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...