Running Lane INT

[Replacematt]

37 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

This neither answers nor addresses the disparity in the standard.

Yes, it does...the purpose of the rule existing there is because a batter can reasonably create the situation where they are going to be running in the general path of the throw. No other runner can do that. 

Like most other rules in baseball, it's to maintain the desired balance between offense and defense. 

[Velho]

32 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Yes, it does...the purpose of the rule existing there is because a batter can reasonably create the situation where they are going to be running in the general path of the throw. No other runner can do that. 

I may be misunderstanding you but any runner with a ball hit behind him can create that by "running to the glove" to get in the throwing lane and it's perfectly legal unless they make an overt act to interfere à la Cole Calhoun (and some argue even that wasn't enough to get INT).

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Yes, it does...the purpose of the rule existing there is because a batter can reasonably create the situation where they are going to be running in the general path of the throw. No other runner can do that. 

You absolutely can do that - you just run at the glove, or where it looks like the fielder will likely receive the throw...and make no mistake, the guy running outside the running lane between home and first is effectively doing just that.

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

You absolutely can do that - you just run at the glove, or where it looks like the fielder will likely receive the throw...and make no mistake, the guy running outside the running lane between home and first is effectively doing just that.

 

1 hour ago, Velho said:

I may be misunderstanding you but any runner with a ball hit behind him can create that by "running to the glove" to get in the throwing lane and it's perfectly legal unless they make an overt act to interfere à la Cole Calhoun (and some argue even that wasn't enough to get INT).

In neither of those did the runner create the situation--they are simply reacting to it.

The other thing to think of is how rare it is for a throw to originate from behind and in the same direction as any other runner. In almost every other case, it is originating in front of and traveling opposite to the runner's direction, which is a reason such a rule isn't needed to create balance elsewhere on the field.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

In neither of those did the runner create the situation--they are simply reacting to it.

The other thing to think of is how rare it is for a throw to originate from behind and in the same direction as any other runner. In almost every other case, it is originating in front of and traveling opposite to the runner's direction, which is a reason such a rule isn't needed to create balance elsewhere on the field.

The runner is creating the situation by reacting to it.  It doesn't matter that the batter can intentionally cause it...that's not why the rule exists, and that is rarely the batter's intent, even when they do drag a bunt down the first base line.  The intent only comes after the situation presents itself to where the batted ball ended up (whether a bunt or an "excuse me" swing) and in that respect the batter/runner's reaction/behavior is no different in principle than any other runner who finds himself between the throw and the base.

It is not rare at all.  Quite common for a ball hit to F3, who is making a throw to second to force R1...or hit to F5, who is throwing home to retire R3.  Or for R1 returning to first on a line drive caught by F4/F6.

I would suggest those are no more rare, to any notable degree, than any RLI scenario.  In any given game you are just as likely to see any one of those scenarios, and none of them are really more prominent.

More importantly, they are the same, in principle. In all those scenarios the runner is going to take a path that gives him the best chance of impeding the throw, especially in the often-likely scenario that running the direct path will not beat said throw.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The runner is creating the situation by reacting to it.  It doesn't matter that the batter can intentionally cause it...that's not why the rule exists, and that is rarely the batter's intent, even when they do drag a bunt down the first base line.  The intent only comes after the situation presents itself to where the batted ball ended up (whether a bunt or an "excuse me" swing) and in that respect the batter/runner's reaction/behavior is no different in principle than any other runner who finds himself between the throw and the base.

It is not rare at all.  Quite common for a ball hit to F3, who is making a throw to second to force R1...or hit to F5, who is throwing home to retire R3.  Or for R1 returning to first on a line drive caught by F4/F6.

I would suggest those are no more rare, to any notable degree, than any RLI scenario.  In any given game you are just as likely to see any one of those scenarios, and none of them are really more prominent.

More importantly, they are the same, in principle. In all those scenarios the runner is going to take a path that gives him the best chance of impeding the throw, especially in the often-likely scenario that running the direct path will not beat said throw.

No, the runner did not create the situation. They did not put the ball in their vicinity.

I never said anything about intent.

And you are completely incorrect about the relative scarcity of these scenarios. 

If one doesn't overthink things and realize that the rules are not about consistency nor fairness, but intended advantage/disadvantage, it'll help understanding their application immensely.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

And you are completely incorrect about the relative scarcity of these scenarios. 

A ground ball is hit to F3 with less than 2 outs and an R1 0.47 times per game (just under once every other game).

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

A ground ball is hit to F3 with less than 2 outs and an R1 0.47 times per game (just under once every other game).

Yep, and a potential RLI situation happens 2.59 per game (only accounting for batted balls hit between the plate and the pitcher without bases loaded.) That's almost six times more likely (hence my use of the word "relative.")

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Yep, and a potential RLI situation happens 2.59 per game (only accounting for batted balls hit between the plate and the pitcher without bases loaded.) That's almost six times more likely (hence my use of the word "relative.")

Point taken on "relative" (though via baseballsavant, I show 1,087 instances of balls to F1 where they may go to F3 in 2024 vs 1,150 instances of balls to F3 with a runner on 1B in 2024).

My inelegantly made point was that the scarcity shouldn't have an impact on how a play should be ruled. We can debate the return on effort for examining a once in a lifetime / season / week play but, given all of our high level expertise, that's the ones we have left to debate.

 

[Edit: 1,207 instead of 1,087 when I correctly include F2 (an A'Ha! moment brushing my teeth) - though, only 120 instances in 2,430 games of F2 handling a batted ball makes me question the data or, more likely, my search capabilities]

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

Point taken on "relative" (though via baseballsavant, I show 1,087 instances of balls to F1 where they may go to F3 in 2024 vs 1,150 instances of balls to F3 with a runner on 1B in 2024).

My inelegantly made point was that the scarcity shouldn't have an impact on how a play should be ruled. We can debate the return on effort for examining a once in a lifetime / season / week play but, given all of our high level expertise, that's the ones we have left to debate.

My point with the scarcity is (partially) explaining why there is a rule to address RLI but not the same actions elsewhere. 

It's a distantly less important reason than the primary one, which is that the batter/runner created the situation, can see the situation develop (unlike a properly-running runner,) and, I did not think about this--knows (in most cases) which side the ball will be coming from, even without visual confirmation, since a batted ball is going to almost always be thrown from fair (the runner's left.) Again, about balance and advantage/disadvantage.

It's a great academic discussion, but for our purposes, does it really matter? It's interference in one situation, not in another, only differing because of location on the field. Why? Because it is. Why three strikes? Because it is. And if we break through what seem to be the current limitations on the human arm, maybe the rubber will be 75 feet from the plate in a century, to keep the balance. <shrug>

[beerguy55]

8 hours ago, Replacematt said:

It's interference in one situation, not in another, only differing because of location on the field. Why? Because it is.

Which was my original point.  It's arbitrary.  Worse yet, in the end the umpire's call on whether or not there is RLI is also almost always arbitrary.   And arguably wrong as often as it's right.  Flip a coin. And it ALWAYS creates an argument.  The game would be better served by dropping the rule and applying the same approach/standard for INT on other bases.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Which was my original point.  It's arbitrary.  Worse yet, in the end the umpire's call on whether or not there is RLI is also almost always arbitrary.   And arguably wrong as often as it's right.  Flip a coin. And it ALWAYS creates an argument.  The game would be better served by dropping the rule and applying the same approach/standard for INT on other bases.

But it's not arbitrary--there are reasons for it that I have detailed (and I was unclear in saying "because it is." That is a statement of letting the why behind a rule go when it is getting in the way of processing how to officiate it, not an actual comment on a rule's raison d'etre.)

And the idea that arguments are results of a flawed system is a common one, and one that ignores the real reason--the whole premise of a contest is conflict. It's "us vs. them." More accurately, it's "us vs. them, and vs. or with the rules." The rules are not only a structure in which a game is played, they are tools for participants to use, abuse, bend, what-have-you, in the desire to win. Us, being the facilitators and enforcers of those rules, are participants in this conflict by the definition of our role. Arguments aren't a problem in themselves; they are a foregone product of the many pieces in conflict.

In short, arguments aren't a KPI, either for evaluating the success of a rule or for that of an official.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

In short, arguments aren't a KPI, either for evaluating the success of a rule or for that of an official.

They certainly are.  They can be, when measured/assessed properly, an illustration of the practicality of the rule, its enforcement, or its judgment.  The latter being the applicable problem to the RLI rule.   RLI when called and not called is argued more than any other infraction/scenario in the rulebook...and it's not close.  The umpire is required to judge whether or not the runner is in or out of the running lane (factual or not it is still a "judgment" call), and then is required to judge whether or not the fielder's ability to catch the throw was hindered (a true "judgment" call)....let alone the other elements (was a throw attempted, was a "good" throw made, etc, etc)

And no matter which way it is called or not called, someone is upset, or confused...players, coaches, even umpires.  And even in cases where we have the benefit of slow motion replay it is literally a coin flip to whether or not the umpire got it right (factually)...or, more often, it is a coin flip to what the general population of spectators, coaches, players or umpires would call RLI or not.

In the end, the raison d'etre is irrelevant...the result is arbitrary.  It's a coin flip, a toss of the dice, a spin of the wheel.  As such, it makes the rule meaningless, and simply enters an element of luck into the game that is unnecessary, and creates an unneeded argument, frustration and tension among the people on the field.  The "luck" being what particular whim crosses the umpire's mind at that particular time...for whatever reason to what he does or does not see, and conclude.  You may as well have R1 and F3 play rock, paper scissors to determine the call, because that is truly how randomly it plays out, even at the professional level.

Even if MLB expanded what was eligible for for video replay, RLI would NEVER be added to the list, for the simple reason that the call on the field could never be overturned...because there would never be consensus to the element of hindrance.

The game is better served by dropping the rule, and letting the runner take whatever path he wants, and, like other bases, as long as he does not look back to see where the ball is to leap into it's path, just let it go.

[Velho]

19 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The umpire is required to judge whether or not the runner is in or out of the running lane (factual or not it is still a "judgment" call), and then is required to judge whether or not the fielder's ability to catch the throw was hindered (a true "judgment" call)....let alone the other elements (was a throw attempted, was a "good" throw made, etc, etc)

Fixed for Texas. 😉 (you can see why they went there since they can't kill the rule entirely)

20 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The game is better served by dropping the rule, and letting the runner take whatever path he wants

This will quietly happen within 5 years at the MLB level. The expansion last year was a path to removing entirely since "it never gets violated".

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/23/2025 at 10:05 AM, beerguy55 said:

We had a full debate here about whether or not Manny Machado interfered with Freddy Freeman's throw between first and second base when Machado clearly moved into the projected path of the throw...and the pro consensus was there was nothing to call there because he didn't actually look at the ball and was just guessing where the throw was doing...so wtf are we worrying about it between home and first?   If the standard on the other bases is whether or not the runner was looking back at the ball to position himself, why isn't it the same between home and first?

 

Just for the record, I am in the dissenting opinion there.  Moving yourself into an illegal and illogical position is intent.  I don't care what you are looking at.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Earlier this year, we had a teacher and a student have a "heated verbal exchange."  Some names were called, some feelings were hurt, and the student stormed out of the room.  As the student was storming out, the teacher hurled a stapler at the student.  It missed the student and left a hole in the wall.  (I'm guessing it wasn't a change up.)

Would you agree there was no intent to harm the student?  (Apparently the Board did, as the teacher returned to work since the stapler missed the student.)

I'm with you @beerguy55.  Eliminate the rule with the lines and distances.  Adopt the double first base and apply a run of the mill interference rule more liberally.

[Replacematt]

On 1/24/2025 at 6:12 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

Just for the record, I am in the dissenting opinion there.  Moving yourself into an illegal and illogical position is intent.  I don't care what you are looking at.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

How can one have a dissenting opinion on something that is explicitly covered? 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

How can one have a dissenting opinion on something that is explicitly covered? 

I dissent on lots of things.  😈

This is an easy answer though: because the definition of "intentional" is not explicitly covered and too many umpires take the easy way out.

Running out of a "normal position" with the only purpose being to "make it harder" fits my definition of intent to interfere.  I don't care which way you are looking; you know where the play is likely to go.  Taking yourself out of a normal path and putting yourself in the line of fire is intent.

[BLWizzRanger]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I dissent on lots of things.  😈

 

Tell us what you believe, TMIB?

 

[Replacematt]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I dissent on lots of things.  😈

This is an easy answer though: because the definition of "intentional" is not explicitly covered and too many umpires take the easy way out.

Running out of a "normal position" with the only purpose being to "make it harder" fits my definition of intent to interfere.  I don't care which way you are looking; you know where the play is likely to go.  Taking yourself out of a normal path and putting yourself in the line of fire is intent.

Given that intent is only half the criteria for what makes something an illegal act in these situations...maybe that's the issue you're having?

This is the second time recently where you've mentioned umpires taking the easy way out (or words to that effect) when you have been 100% in the wrong. In fact, your other mention of it has the idea of legality and interpreting rules completely backwards and ironically suggests to do lazy umpiring rather than doing the right thing, all while saying that those that do get it are doing it incorrectly.

[The Man in Blue]

I'm not asking about the merits of the other half.  I am saying intentionally running into the path of a play is enough to constitute intent.  So when he gets hit in the back (he interfered) you cannot back down and say he didn't intend to just because he wasn't looking at the ball.

If we want to parse down into the weeds on the rest of it, we can.  We can look at the different codes and the two different "use cases" (RLI at first base, baserunning at all other bases).

I don't even know which other of my opinions you are taking umbrage with.  I will say this, when I provide a dissenting opinion, I provide the details to back up my opinion.  I am not always right, and sometimes talking through it shows me what I missed.

In general, yes, I view any stance that lands on the side of "we should allow all sorts of stupidity" as lazy umpiring and an affront to the game.  Throwing our hands up and saying "there isn't a rule that says exactly that" is lazy umpiring.  Umpires should be able to use the rules to arrive at a logical and fair ruling, not to get out of doing so.

And absolutely, @BLWizzRanger has me nailed . . . I am a baseball romantic.  I had that speech memorized when I was 13 and the local theater wouldn't let us in to see Bull Durham (but let us in to Rambo III the week before).  The game has a purity and beauty to it.  I don't like efforts to find ways to game the system.        

[Replacematt]

22 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm not asking about the merits of the other half.  I am saying intentionally running into the path of a play is enough to constitute intent.  So when he gets hit in the back (he interfered) you cannot back down and say he didn't intend to just because he wasn't looking at the ball.

If we want to parse down into the weeds on the rest of it, we can.  We can look at the different codes and the two different "use cases" (RLI at first base, baserunning at all other bases).

I don't even know which other of my opinions you are taking umbrage with.  I will say this, when I provide a dissenting opinion, I provide the details to back up my opinion.  I am not always right, and sometimes talking through it shows me what I missed.

In general, yes, I view any stance that lands on the side of "we should allow all sorts of stupidity" as lazy umpiring and an affront to the game.  Throwing our hands up and saying "there isn't a rule that says exactly that" is lazy umpiring.  Umpires should be able to use the rules to arrive at a logical and fair ruling, not to get out of doing so.

And absolutely, @BLWizzRanger has me nailed . . . I am a baseball romantic.  I had that speech memorized when I was 13 and the local theater wouldn't let us in to see Bull Durham (but let us in to Rambo III the week before).  The game has a purity and beauty to it.  I don't like efforts to find ways to game the system.        

Intent isn't sufficient on its own for this type of INT, as I've already said. If you would stop getting hung up on that part of it, you would see why this is not INT.

And making SH*# up when there are rules to cover things (and there is a rule for everything a player can/cannot do related to game play) is lazy umpiring. It's not getting into the book and not getting what rules mean and intend, and what they don't mean and intend. And I take umbrage at people casting aspersions on others, especially groups of people, while living in glass houses, and on top of that, to add on a glaze of holier-than-thou? GTFO.

I hope your shoulder heals in time for your season.

[johnnyg08]

On 1/24/2025 at 6:12 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Moving yourself into an illegal and illogical position is intent.

Agree

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Intent isn't sufficient on its own for this type of INT,

 

Why? I think there is verbiage in the book that would make a runner intentionally interfering with a throw INT. Do you have cites that say it wouldn't be INT because why?

[Replacematt]

23 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Why? I think there is verbiage in the book that would make a runner intentionally interfering with a throw INT. Do you have cites that say it wouldn't be INT because why?

There has to be an act separate from running. Wendelstedt 9.3.9 (which is about interference with a fielder, but as covered in school, it applies to a throw.)

To make running in the path of a yet-to-be-thrown ball or unseen throw illegal creates a de facto requirement that they have to vacate space for a throw, thus requiring runners not to be hit by the ball 100% of the time, even if it isn't intentional.

Why does R3 lead off in foul and come back in fair? To get in the way of a throw. Bam...now it's illegal.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

There has to be an act separate from running. 
 

There is an act. It's an intentional change of direction while running. MLB umpires not calling it do not become an interp.