Running Lane INT

[Replacematt]

32 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

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

You mean running? Because that's...running. The exact MLB situations mentioned here are used as the ones there as examples of the published interpretation.

The bullSH*# going on in this thread is why this place lost value, and why I'm regretting my decision to come back. Just a lot of yeahbuts. (Along with subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry, and the urge for some people to make underhanded political comments that show no semblance of any knowledge about what they say, but that's a different thread.)

[JonnyCat]

11 hours ago, Replacematt said:

The bullSH*# going on in this thread is why this place lost value, and why I'm regretting my decision to come back. Just a lot of yeahbuts. (Along with subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry, and the urge for some people to make underhanded political comments that show no semblance of any knowledge about what they say, but that's a different thread.)

This place functions as exactly as it should, a forum to discuss and bounce ideas off of those that wish to participate. It's not meant to be the absolute authority on all things umpiring. It's a place where opinions are very much a part of the discussions. Right or wrong, it's part of most forums.

You don't have to be right all the time, and no one has to listen to you. Your opinions matters just as much as anyone else's. It's a discussion forum. People are going to dissent. 

Do whatever you want in your game, and others will do what they see fit in their games. Do I like how some umpires do things on the field? No. Do I have much, if any, control over it? No. I'll do the best I can to promote what I think are the best ways to umpire, but I'm not going to get heartburn over it if someone doesn't listen. Worry about those things you have control over.

BTW. You've mentioned at least twice that I can remember, your regret over coming back. Don't patronize us with your threats to not participate here. No one gives a SH*# if you're on this forum or not. If you want to contribute here on this site, your knowledge and insight is appreciated. If not, STFU about it and don't participate. No one cares.

Make Umpiring Great Again!

[jimurrayalterego]

12 hours ago, Replacematt said:

You mean running? Because that's...running. The exact MLB situations mentioned here are used as the ones there as examples of the published interpretation.
 

I only have a 2017 MLBUM. Where do you find a published interp regarding what would be the Machado play?

[Velho]

2019 MLBUM states:

Quote

 

53. WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE INTERFERENCE

Rules 6.01(a)(5-7), 5.09(a)(13), 5.09(b)(3), 6.01(j):

Rules 6.01(a)(6) and 6.01(a)(7) were added to the Official Baseball Rules to

add an additional penalty when a base runner or a batter-runner deliberately and

intentionally interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted

ball to deprive the defensive team of an opportunity to complete a possible double

play. Keep in mind the rules provide that the runner or batter-runner must inter-

fere with the obvious attempt to break up a double play.

Rule 5.09(a)(13) was added to the Official Baseball Rules “to penalize the

offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner

in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a dou-

ble play rather than trying to reach the base.”

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately inter-

feres with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball

with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double

play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also

declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate.

 

Bolded is mine. That seems to support @The Man in Blue's position?

@Replacematt - can you cite the references contrary guidance? Appreciate it.

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/30/2025 at 10:21 PM, Replacematt said:

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.

I’ll come back to the rest when I have more time later, but want to grab this low hanging fruit …

A runner in fair territory who is hit by a batted ball is out.  So you lead off in foul territory in case the batter pulls a screamer at you.

You return in fair territory because *that’s where the base is*.

You make a point though that maybe we should scrutinize the throw coming down to third and a runner coming back standing up with a more critical eye.  Why don’t we?  Because that is a logical and reasonable path for the runner, so we aren’t parsing it.

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/30/2025 at 7:34 PM, Replacematt said:

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.

I’m not hung up on it.  I never stated simply veering two or three or however far feet out of your base path* to put yourself in the line of fire is INTERFERENCE.  I said it meets the criteria for the INTENT piece.  Not sure why you are conflating those, but maybe I wasn’t as clear as I thought.

 

*I am NOT citing the OOBP rule, I am using the definition of base path to illustrate the point that a runner is expected to move directly to the next base, not do this:

 

If there were a rule covering every possible thing a player can and cannot due, umpires would not be given the explicit authority to rule on things not covered in the rules.

We do agree that MSU is lazy umpiring.  We just seem to disagree on what is MSU and how one combats it.

When something is not covered, IMO, that is where you can determine what kind of an umpire a person can be.  Do they just MSU and look for the quick and easy way to get out of it?  Or do they look to the rulebook and use it to arrive at a decision that is within the spirit of the game?  

I will take that a step further … do they then go home and begin looking into their ruling (which we can be wrong!) and figure it out so they can fix it?  Or do they keep moving and just adopt that as gospel going forward?

If you feel I am casting aspersions, perhaps you are right.  I take this same approach in my classroom, though, and in my life.  Not knowing something is not a negative thing.  Refusing to know something is.  

[Replacematt]

On 1/31/2025 at 11:21 AM, JonnyCat said:

This place functions as exactly as it should, a forum to discuss and bounce ideas off of those that wish to participate. It's not meant to be the absolute authority on all things umpiring. It's a place where opinions are very much a part of the discussions. Right or wrong, it's part of most forums.

You don't have to be right all the time, and no one has to listen to you. Your opinions matters just as much as anyone else's. It's a discussion forum. People are going to dissent. 

I'm not talking about anything involving opinions. I'm talking about facts--arguing with published interpretations.

Quote

Do whatever you want in your game, and others will do what they see fit in their games. Do I like how some umpires do things on the field? No. Do I have much, if any, control over it? No. I'll do the best I can to promote what I think are the best ways to umpire, but I'm not going to get heartburn over it if someone doesn't listen. Worry about those things you have control over.

I'm not worrying about anything, thanks.

Quote

BTW. You've mentioned at least twice that I can remember, your regret over coming back.

So? If I feel people are acting out of line, I will remind them that there is an audience to be lost. It isn't about me, but their behavior. I can only speak to what I can control regarding that.

Quote

Don't patronize us with your threats to not participate here.

Well, since I didn't do that...

[Replacematt]

On 2/1/2025 at 10:31 AM, The Man in Blue said:

I’m not hung up on it.  I never stated simply veering two or three or however far feet out of your base path* to put yourself in the line of fire is INTERFERENCE.  I said it meets the criteria for the INTENT piece.  Not sure why you are conflating those, but maybe I wasn’t as clear as I thought.

 

*I am NOT citing the OOBP rule, I am using the definition of base path to illustrate the point that a runner is expected to move directly to the next base, not do this:

 

If there were a rule covering every possible thing a player can and cannot due, umpires would not be given the explicit authority to rule on things not covered in the rules.

The reason for that authority, as it stands now, is for other things.

I used to have the same viewpoint as you, that it's impossible to have rules to cover everything. I mentioned that to a mentor of mine, former MiLB and several CWS appearances, and he completely changed my thinking...this is what he said (paraphrasing:)

Bottom line: there's a rule for everything. Everything regarding actions is covered in the rulebook or interpretations. It's just a matter of being familiar enough to know what applies and when, and when things don't apply. Save the gap-filling for when something comes onto the field from outside of it--the rulebook (and its accompaniments) draw out what happens in the imaginary, self-contained world of the field itself. 

And you know what? He was right. I cannot think of an example (even on his challenge) of anything a player can do that doesn't have a rule to cover or exclude it. 

And I get that may be a tough approach to accept, especially if one doesn't have access to all the tools involved such as school manuals, manuals promulgated by professional baseball, etc. But they're in there. And secondarily, the modality of clinic/school training cannot be understated, because it provides the reinforcement and greater explanation than the written word can.

 

[Replacematt]

On 1/31/2025 at 1:11 PM, Velho said:

2019 MLBUM states:

Bolded is mine. That seems to support @The Man in Blue's position?

@Replacematt - can you cite the references contrary guidance? Appreciate it.

Willful and deliberate refers to a batted ball and the intent to interfere with a double play (Wendelstedt 9.3.10,) or interfering with the fielder on such an attempt (9.3.11, and your own cite from MLBUM.)

[Replacematt]

On 1/31/2025 at 12:48 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

I only have a 2017 MLBUM. Where do you find a published interp regarding what would be the Machado play?

The Wendelstedt video series uses that as an example of non-interference and why--I've listed the published interpretations elsewhere in this thread.

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Willful and deliberate refers to a batted ball and the intent to interfere with a double play (Wendelstedt 9.3.10,) or interfering with the fielder on such an attempt (9.3.11, and your own cite from MLBUM.)

R1 Machado was trying to disrupt a 5-6-3 DP.

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

R1 Machado was trying to disrupt a 5-6-3 DP.

Yep, and it wasn't a batted ball or the fielder. The same criteria applies as on any other throw. It has to be a movement that reacts to actually seeing the throw and moving into its path, or something other than running. (This is why the video clip is helpful, because it's better at explaining than trying to write it out can do.) 

[JonnyCat]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Well, since I didn't do that...

You're still here?

[johnnyg08]

12 hours ago, Velho said:

R1 Machado was trying to disrupt a 5-6-3 DP.

This play? (Obviously not 5-6-3) so maybe it's not the play you need. 

 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

This play? (Obviously not 5-6-3) so maybe it's not the play you need. 

Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative 😉

Seriously though, yeah, I misremembered the details of that play. Thanks.