Runner Lane Interference?

[johnnyg08]

O'Nora seems to have a great look at this. Any idea why he passed on it? Even with the new MLB interp, this seems to be a pretty good example of RLI. 

 

[grayhawk]

It seems like the grass is closer to foul line here than it is at other stadiums. Maybe that played into O'Nora's decision for a no call?

[johnnyg08]

15 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

It seems like the grass is closer to foul line here than it is at other stadiums. Maybe that played into O'Nora's decision for a no call?

Maybe...but there lies the problem with the rule...it's one of the reasons why we don't use it at amateur levels. 

So in Chicago, it would be RLI, but not in MN. 

How do you communicate that to teams? I think Venable has a case and maybe because it's early in the game/season he doesn't get tossed here. It would've wiped a run. 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

O'Nora seems to have a great look at this. Any idea why he passed on it? 

 

O'Nora, at least in my experience, comes up short in rules applications somewhat more than the rest of his cohorts.

[Velho]

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

It seems like the grass is closer to foul line here than it is at other stadiums. Maybe that played into O'Nora's decision for a no call?

Maybe...but there lies the problem with the rule...it's one of the reasons why we don't use it at amateur levels. 

 

I recall the standardization of this across MLB field was a reason they used infield grass as a delineation. &nbsp

[johnnyg08]

15 minutes ago, Velho said:

I recall the standardization of this across MLB field was a reason they used infield grass as a delineation. &nbsp

Precisely. 

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Precisely. 

Seems pretty straightforward.

"2.01(b) The grass line of the infield dirt in fair territory along the first base line between home and first base shall be no less than 18 inches and no more than 24 inches from the first base line."

"5.09(a)(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The chalk lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane, on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside (to the left of) the foul line in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base.

The umpire will determine that the batter-runner complied with Rule 5.09(a)(11) if the batter had both feet within the three-foot lane, or on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside of the foul line (A) after reaching the last half of the distance from home base to first base, or (B) after the ball is released by a fielder in a throw to first base, whichever is later."

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Seems pretty straightforward.

"2.01(b) The grass line of the infield dirt in fair territory along the first base line between home and first base shall be no less than 18 inches and no more than 24 inches from the first base line."

"5.09(a)(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The chalk lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane, on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside (to the left of) the foul line in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base.

The umpire will determine that the batter-runner complied with Rule 5.09(a)(11) if the batter had both feet within the three-foot lane, or on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside of the foul line (A) after reaching the last half of the distance from home base to first base, or (B) after the ball is released by a fielder in a throw to first base, whichever is later."

Seems that way. Brian obviously felt differently. 

[The Man in Blue]

Ok, I’ll bite …

The grass line is not 18” (let alone 24”) off the foul line.  The runner was within the “inside” lane.  

Grass is an indicator, not the actual line of demarcation.  

According to Umpire Bible, teams/stadiums have been given a grace period to bring the grass line into compliance.

Soapbox: The inside expansion only works when a double-bag (or safety base) and governance are applied with it.  Simply expanding the runner’s lane into the field of play was … well … dumb.  

[johnnyg08]

Just now, The Man in Blue said:

Ok, I’ll bite …

The grass line is not 18” (let alone 24”) off the foul line.  The runner was within the “inside” lane.  

Grass is an indicator, not the actual line of demarcation.  

According to Umpire Bible, teams/stadiums have been given a grace period to bring the grass line into compliance.

Soapbox: The inside expansion only works when a double-bag (or safety base) and governance are applied with it.  Simply expanding the runner’s lane into the field of play was … well … dumb.  

Sure...then shouldn't the runner's lane, then be the standard until every field is consistent? Having the arbitrary, "imaginary line" on some fields, and not others begs for SH*# storms. If we're going do that, get rid of the runner's lane all together and make it all arbitrary. 

 

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The grass line is not 18” (let alone 24”) off the foul line.  The runner was within the “inside” lane.  

Grass is an indicator, not the actual line of demarcation.

It is in MLB per 5.09(a)(11) @jimurrayalterego posted above.

4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Having the arbitrary, "imaginary line" on some fields, and not others begs for SH*# storms. If we're going do that, get rid of the runner's lane all together and make it all arbitrary. 

I still think the expanded RLI was an interim step to get rid otherwise rule all together. "See it's been years since it was an issue. Delete it." 

whomp-whomp

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Seems that way. Brian obviously felt differently. 

Like I said, not the sharpest rule guy.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ok, I’ll bite …

The grass line is not 18” (let alone 24”) off the foul line.  The runner was within the “inside” lane.  

Grass is an indicator, not the actual line of demarcation.  

According to Umpire Bible, teams/stadiums have been given a grace period to bring the grass line into compliance.

Soapbox: The inside expansion only works when a double-bag (or safety base) and governance are applied with it.  Simply expanding the runner’s lane into the field of play was … well … dumb.  

I agree the grass line might not be to spec. We don't know what MLB says to use if the grass line is not 18" or 24". The base is 18" and you could argue he was in a legal 18" to 24" lane most of the way until he decided to screen F3 and went outside 18", judging from the width of 1B.

[Richvee]

It almost looks like O’Nora is saying he’s allowed to veer back towards the bag. Which wouldn’t excuse him from a violation if he was never legal🤷‍♂️ 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

It almost looks like O’Nora is saying he’s allowed to veer back towards the bag. Which wouldn’t excuse him from a violation if he was never legal🤷‍♂️ 

 

I think that interp would not be applicable anymore. 24" or 18" from whatever MLB thinks is the "first base line" allows the runner not to have to exit anything. Unless he exits the lane the opposite direction toward the grass to screen F3 and then jinks toward 1B. But still, if he had run legally he could get hit with a throw at the base and not be guilty of RLI. But if you look closely he was hit on the left side while he deviated out of the lane trying to screen F3. Video review or get rid of the rule completely.

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, Velho said:

It is in MLB per 5.09(a)(11) @jimurrayalterego posted above.

Umm . . . it isn't?  By rule the grass line is to be a minimum of 18" off the foul line.  Several sources (i.e., Umpire Bible, FOX Sports) report that MLB granted a grace period for parks to be in compliance.  

What I cannot find is what does that grace period provide (use the grass or use 18" or 24"?) or how long that grace period is/was.  I checked the ground rules for Target Field, but there is no mention of it there.

I cannot imagine that the grace period says Use the grass even if it is 3" off the line.  Then again, it is MLB.

 

7 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Seems pretty straightforward.

"2.01(b) The grass line of the infield dirt in fair territory along the first base line between home and first base shall be no less than 18 inches and no more than 24 inches from the first base line."

"5.09(a)(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The chalk lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane, on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside (to the left of) the foul line in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base.

The umpire will determine that the batter-runner complied with Rule 5.09(a)(11) if the batter had both feet within the three-foot lane, or on the lines marking the lane, or on the dirt inside of the foul line (A) after reaching the last half of the distance from home base to first base, or (B) after the ball is released by a fielder in a throw to first base, whichever is later."

 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I agree the grass line might not be to spec. We don't know what MLB says to use if the grass line is not 18" or 24". The base is 18" and you could argue he was in a legal 18" to 24" lane most of the way until he decided to screen F3 and went outside 18", judging from the width of 1B.

 

I agree with that completely. 

 

But I am sure it wasn't intentional and he wasn't looking at the ball.  

[Velho]

17 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I cannot imagine that the grace period says Use the grass even if it is 3" off the line.  Then again, it is MLB.

"Hey Coach, I asked if the field was suitable for play and you said yes - remember? So then 2.01(b) doesn't matter. 5.09(a)(11) says grass to chalk of the runners lane." 😉

[johnnyg08]

So I was able to get some information on how they look at these plays at this level. The bases are bigger at 18" The grass line is required to be 12"-18" from the foul line and it's reported that is consistent at all MLB ballparks. If the PU can see the entire base it is a violation and if the runner blocks a portion of the base from the PU's view, then he's legal.

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The grass line is required to be 12"-18" from the foul line and it's reported that is consistent at all MLB ballparks. 

 

It isn't.  They are not.

 

You're welcome.

😋

 

Seriously, that is good info on the guidance they are given.  This rule is still a travesty.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

It isn't.  They are not.

 

You're welcome.

😋

 

Seriously, that is good info on the guidance they are given.  This rule is still a travesty.

I would like to retain my source. So when I'm told something...I nod my head and agree. And offer gratitude for taking time to respond. 

[jimurrayalterego]

23 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I would like to retain my source. So when I'm told something...I nod my head and agree. And offer gratitude for taking time to respond. 

So O'Nora never saw the full base, or the jink to screen which would have shown the full base. Did your source opine on what was called in this play or did he just say it was O'Nora.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So O'Nora never saw the full base, or the jink to screen which would have shown the full base. Did your source opine on what was called in this play or did he just say it was O'Nora.

I didn't ask it that way. Only as a general question about how they're trained to interpret the rule. 

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I didn't ask it that way. Only as a general question about how they're trained to interpret the rule. 

What happened to 18” to 24”?

 

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

That’s where the grass line is.