2024 Major MLB Rules Changes - A CCS Review

[Lindsay]

Major League Baseball announced several rules changes approved by MLB's Competition Committee for the 2024 season, including reductions in the pitch clock timer and mound visit limit, new pitcher minimums, and an expansion of the runner's lane to a wider space.

Pitch Clock

Although the 15-second bases-empty pitch clock and 30-second between-batters pitch clock will remain the same in 2024, MLB will reduce the runners-on-base limit by two seconds, from 2023's mark of 20-seconds to 18 seconds in 2024. Furthermore, the pitch timer following foul balls or other dead ball situations will now begin upon the pitcher receiving the new baseball as opposed to 2023's start of the pitcher entering the dirt circle or mound area.

Mound Visit Limit

In 2023, teams were permitted five mound visits per game before being compelled to remove a pitcher for any subsequent visit exceeding this allotment. Umpires had discretion late in games to allow a mound visit without requiring the pitcher's removal. In 2024, teams will be allowed four mound visits until the 9th inning, when umpires may afford teams an additional visit without the must-remove-pitcher penalty.

Pitcher Minimum

In addition to the existing three-batter minimum rule for pitchers, 2024 will now require any pitcher who warms up on the field prior to an inning to face at least one batter (three for any pitcher newly into the game). This will prevent managers from executing pitching changes after warmups but before the first batter of the new inning.

Runner's Lane

Due to a flurry of runner's interference incidents, MLB will expand the runner's lane in 2024 to include the entirety of the dirt path between home plate and first base in fair territory, in addition to the existing three-foot wide lane in foul territory during the latter half of the distance to first base. This expansion effectively means runners may run to first base without penalty in fair territory, provided that both feet remain on or touching the dirt. A runner will be deemed legal if half of their foot is on the dirt and half on the infield grass in fair territory.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Reviewing MLB's 2024 rules changes

View the full article

[Lou B]

A runner will be deemed legal if half of their foot is on the dirt and half on the infield grass - it would have been easier to say their whole foot needs to be on the dirt with none of it on the infield grass.  I can see the replays now: looks like 75% of his foot is on the grass!

[SeeingEyeDog]

Yeah, they think they are solving this but, they aren't. The real problem is...nobody knows or understands RLI except the umpires. I don't think it's called enough frankly. Batters just put the ball into play and run down to 1B without any respect for the running lane and "hope" there isn't a problem. The game has had so many instances of correctly adjudicated RLI violations in the past 20 years, many of them preserved on YouTube and yet, when was the last time you saw RLI called and the team at-bat took the call in silence? Never. They always come out on this which is the way they want it...well, they get it.

The answer is the softball double-bag at 1B but, that would mean baseball has to adopt something from "that girl's game" which would mean admitting they don't know best...

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Yeah, they think they are solving this but, they aren't. The real problem is...nobody knows or understands RLI except the umpires. I don't think it's called enough frankly. Batters just put the ball into play and run down to 1B without any respect for the running lane and "hope" there isn't a problem. The game has had so many instances of correctly adjudicated RLI violations in the past 20 years, many of them preserved on YouTube and yet, when was the last time you saw RLI called and the team at-bat took the call in silence? Never. They always come out on this which is the way they want it...well, they get it.

The answer is the softball double-bag at 1B but, that would mean baseball has to adopt something from "that girl's game" which would mean admitting they don't know best...

~Dawg

I don't think the double bag would solve the RLI problem. RH batters would still be out of the lane running directly to that side 1B from their initial position at ball contact. I think the double bag was for collisions. Doesn't softball still have a running lane rule? The solution would be to eliminate the rule and have the catcher find a throwing lane while the runner would still be liable for regular INT if you judged a deviation from his basepath to interfere with the throw.

[SeeingEyeDog]

6 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think the double bag would solve the RLI problem. RH batters would still be out of the lane running directly to that side 1B from their initial position at ball contact. I think the double bag was for collisions. Doesn't softball still have a running lane rule? The solution would be to eliminate the rule and have the catcher find a throwing lane while the runner would still be liable for regular INT if you judged a deviation from his basepath to interfere with the throw.

We're splitting hairs here...the double-bag doesn't 100% eliminate RLI but, it would reduce the likelihood and reduce collisions because it gives the fielder and runner more room to operate. There's no drawbacks to the double bag. Yes, you'd still want to have RLI rules and a chalked out running lane. With all of that in place, in now becomes much more obvious even to the casual fan or Dad-coach that there was an infraction and why it's being called. That's good for the umpires and good for the game.

~Dawg

[ArchAngel72]

runners lane rule change to me is BS.. Its been that way to protect the defence from jerks running into the throw forever now they give them MORE room to possibly interfere..

 

Just enforce the damn rule and make the runners learn dont run in the way of the ball being thrown.. Its not like its a serious disadvantage for the offense 

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think the double bag would solve the RLI problem. RH batters would still be out of the lane running directly to that side 1B from their initial position at ball contact. I think the double bag was for collisions. Doesn't softball still have a running lane rule? The solution would be to eliminate the rule and have the catcher find a throwing lane while the runner would still be liable for regular INT if you judged a deviation from his basepath to interfere with the throw.

 

The lane doesn't start until half-way down the baseline.  You know that.  That is ample time for a RH batter to move over.  The problem isn't there, anyway.  The problem is on the other end where the base is NOT IN THE RUNNER'S LANE, so the runner then has to exit the space they are provided.

[The Man in Blue]

My odd question is: why on Earth is there a discretionary mound visit in the umpire's arsenal?  Either give it to them or don't.  Why are we putting a burden on the umpire to decide?

[Jimurray]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

The lane doesn't start until half-way down the baseline.  You know that.  That is ample time for a RH batter to move over.  The problem isn't there, anyway.  The problem is on the other end where the base is NOT IN THE RUNNER'S LANE, so the runner then has to exit the space they are provided.

The runner doesn’t want to move over. The quickest way to 1B is a direct line from your batting location. Technically the runner does not have to exit the lane to touch the base. The 4” foul line is part of the lane making 4 inches of the base available in the lane. But we don’t ask the runner to risk an ankle injury by restricting him to that part of the base. 

[The Man in Blue]

Why do we care what the runner wants?  The pitcher doesn't want us to call that balk.  The coach doesn't want us to call that interference.  The pitching coach doesn't want us to call any balls.  Who cares what they "want?"

I won't disagree about the quickest path, and in that sense, this change makes sense.  Draw that straight line from the batter's position to first base, and by the time he is half-way to first base, he should be within this new runner's lane.  Had we simply had the lane switched from foul territory to fair, it would work against a left handed hitter.  I suppose "both sides" of the foul line makes sense.

[Velho]

This seems to be a way of getting rid of RLI without eliminating it all together. More worried about appearing right than being right.

[Biscuit]

I'm fine with (except in really egregious cases) getting rid of RLI. Honestly? It's just more natural this way. I don't think many runners are intentionally trying to interfere by running out of the way (though it does happen). I'd eager the vast majority of plays are the runner just trying to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. It's easier for the defense to adjust (they can see all relevant info) than the batter. 

On top of this, RLI isn't fun for anyone who isn't an umpire. It's a convoluted rule (yes, we understand it, but its inherently a little tricky. That's why it's the only rule they made us memorize verbatim at school), and it doesn't quite feel fair if you don't understand it. Sure, the defense will take it in the moment, but ask any player or coach what they think and... Well, they don't like it. And yes, that does matter. It simply was time for the rule to change. It has effectively changed before (by putting the bag in fair territory and allowing the runner to exit), and it may change again. 

I don't love the double bag solution for one reason: Bounding foul balls are already a difficult call. Yes, the second bag is a different color. Yes, softball umpires do it. But, it's still harder, and I'm calling that from 1.5x the distance, on a smaller ball. That means farther away, smaller, and there's more time for the ball to cut and slice. 

[beerguy55]

Widening the running lane isn't going to solve anything.  The same fundamental issue will remain - the offense is pissed off when it is called, the defense is pissed off when it isn't.  I have yet to see a called, or uncalled, RLI scenario, at any level, that did not lead to arguments.

Whether they're right or not is beside the point.  It's a piss poor rule that just creates bad will.  

The rule is unnecessary and causes more problems than it solves.  And the last 45 feet between home and first is treated completely differently than any other location on the basepaths...in how/whether a runner interferes (intentionally) with a throw...vs unintentionally with a catch.

Kill the rule.

[Velho]

2027 Announcement: "We're removing the RLI rule entirely. We don't see any impact since it rarely comes into play."

Playing chess on this one. Not checkers.

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:03 AM, beerguy55 said:

Widening the running lane isn't going to solve anything.  The same fundamental issue will remain - the offense is pissed off when it is called, the defense is pissed off when it isn't.  I have yet to see a called, or uncalled, RLI scenario, at any level, that did not lead to arguments.

Whether they're right or not is beside the point.  It's a piss poor rule that just creates bad will.  

The rule is unnecessary and causes more problems than it solves.  And the last 45 feet between home and first is treated completely differently than any other location on the basepaths...in how/whether a runner interferes (intentionally) with a throw...vs unintentionally with a catch.

Kill the rule.

beerguy...how about this?:  When running the last 45 feet to first base, the runner must straddle the foul line.  That would seem to take a lot of the judgment and rule interpretation out of the play.  What do you and others think?

[beerguy55]

19 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

beerguy...how about this?:  When running the last 45 feet to first base, the runner must straddle the foul line.  That would seem to take a lot of the judgment and rule interpretation out of the play.  What do you and others think?

oh gawd, that's worse.  You as PU want to really determine that for the last 45 feet B/R kept his right foot right of the line and left foot left of the line?  Good luck.  Same result.  Defense is unhappy when it's uncalled, offense is unhappy when it is.  For an entirely different, and more complicated, judgment call.  The argument will be simply be about whether not he straddled the line, vs whether or not he was in the running lane (or whether or not he impeded the catch).

Bottom line, for the other 315 feet around the bases, in either direction, the runner makes his own path, by rule....and must INTENTIONALLY interfere with a throw to be penalized, by rule.  Apply the same standard to that other 45 feet.