What if Runner's Lane Interference was Reviewable - CPBL

[Lindsay]

What if runner's lane interference was a reviewable play? It might not be in MLB, but it is in the Chinese Professional Baseball League and we take a look at one such CPBL review that resulted in ejection of the offensive team manager when RLI, which was not called on the field, was awarded by the Replay Official.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11) states, "The batter is out when in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, they run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead."

Given this language, do you believe this was RLI? Could the throw have reasonable retired the runner, given the runner's foot was already on first base as the thrown ball was still well in front of first base?

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Runner's lane interference review results in CPBL manager ejection

View the full article

[beerguy55]

So, it's reviewable and they still F*#K it up.  And that's the coming problem with replay in MLB too.  When you have 500 camera angles and you still get the call wrong what are you doing.   

On RLI - just get rid of the rule.  It just never ends well.

[The Man in Blue]

Flip side ... Keep RLI and implement the double base to fix it.  Then there is NO reason for the runner to be over there.

 

Based on the criteria for RLI ... the throw could not have retired the runner, so you cannot have interference.

 

Karaoke night ... 🤣

[beerguy55]

I will add one consideration to my original assessment about the call being "wrong" - in short, I'm arguing myself into changing my own mind.  Since RLI is about impeding F3's ability to catch the ball, it's not really relevant if B/R beat the throw (ie. would have been safe)...he still interfered with the fielder's ability to catch the ball, which caused it to go up the right field line.

Having said that, does the running lane end at the base?  At the front or back of the base?  Can he still violate RLI even if the running lane has ended by the time the ball arrives?  

[Vegas_Ump]

57 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I will add one consideration to my original assessment about the call being "wrong" - in short, I'm arguing myself into changing my own mind.  Since RLI is about impeding F3's ability to catch the ball, it's not really relevant if B/R beat the throw (ie. would have been safe)...he still interfered with the fielder's ability to catch the ball, which caused it to go up the right field line.

Having said that, does the running lane end at the base?  At the front or back of the base?  Can he still violate RLI even if the running lane has ended by the time the ball arrives?  

Saw that very play in the World Series.  If the BR beats the throw legitimately, there is no longer a play to interfere with!

Mike

Las Vegas

[The Man in Blue]

As @Vegas_Ump says, that is our general acceptance ... that there is no longer a play to interfere with ... but I like the wrinkle @beerguy55 throws in. 

 

Say the theoretical "incident" (I won't call it interference for the sake of keeping things straight) did cause the fielder to miss the throw which then allows the runner to advance.  The batter-runner was not going to be put out, but did "interfere" with the fielder catching the ball AND benefitted from it.

 

Thoughts?

[Mussgrass]

That lends itself to how far must the BR be past 1B to not be guilty of interfering with the throw. Level of play would be a factor in that.

[Velho]

30 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Say the theoretical "incident" (I won't call it interference for the sake of keeping things straight) did cause the fielder to miss the throw which then allows the runner to advance.  The batter-runner was not going to be put out, but did "interfere" with the fielder catching the ball AND benefitted from it.

 

That interference would have to be intentional to penalize the runner, no?

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

That interference would have to be intentional to penalize the runner, no?

Is RLI considered intentional?

[Velho]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Say the theoretical "incident" (I won't call it interference for the sake of keeping things straight) did cause the fielder to miss the throw which then allows the runner to advance.  The batter-runner was not going to be put out, but did "interfere" with the fielder catching the ball AND benefitted from it.

Just now, The Man in Blue said:

Is RLI considered intentional?

No but I was going off your statement (how I heard it at least) that in event it's not RLI but BR still hinders F3. For that to be INT the action would have to have been intentional.

[The Man in Blue]

Misunderstood / misstated … the question is: could there be an argument for it to still be RLI on the continuing play?  
 

Runner’s foot is in the air by 1/2 an inch and you are going to call RLI.  Exact same play, but the foot is a half inch lower and gets the base … magically not interference?

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

No but I was going off your statement (how I heard it at least) that in event it's not RLI but BR still hinders F3. For that to be INT the action would have to have been intentional.

That is, since RLI is about hindering the fielder at first base in his attempt to complete the catch, can you still argue RLI, even if the b/r beat the throw to the base, in that the fielder's inability to make the catch - caused by B/R being outside the running lane - allowed b/r, or one of the other runners, to advance an additional base.

 

EDIT: to me, that's the only reason this call would be ruled RLI after replay review...it's very clear b/r beat the throw and would have been safe even with a clean throw and catch.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

magically not interference?