Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

MLB’s Torre says “right call” on dispute interference

HOUSTON (AP) — Major League Baseball executive Joe Torre says the “right call” was made and that a protest was denied after Nationals leadoff hitter Trea Turner was called out for interference during Washington’s 7-2 Game 6 victory in the World Series on Tuesday night.

Nationals manager Dave Martinez was ejected for arguing plate umpire Sam Holbrook’s ruling in the seventh inning, and Torre said Washington’s request to protest the game was denied because it was a judgment call.

Holbrook’s signal came after Turner hit a slow roller down the third base line with a runner at first and ran narrowly inside fair territory.

Pitcher Brad Peacock fielded the ball, and his throw pulled first baseman Yuli Gurriel toward the baseline. As Gurriel stretched, Turner ran into his glove, and the ball bounced off Turner’s leg and into foul territory. Turner ended up at second, with lead runner Yan Gomes going to third — except Holbrook quickly signaled for interference.

I believe that this is what our British friends would describe as “Mandy Rice-Davies applies”.

QLE Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:49 AM | 193 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: controversial calls, interference, joe torre, trea turner, world series

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:04 AM (#5896195)
I can't believe that was the right call. This has to be Torre defending the umpires. Turner has to be given a pass to the base, and the pitcher had a throwing lane available but made the throw into the runner. If this call is right, it rewards a bad throw while restricting the runner in an unreasonable manner, in my opinion.

I'm an umpire, and I should know this rule better than I apparently do, but I know I would never call this particular play in favor of the defense.
   2. shoelesjoe Posted: October 30, 2019 at 03:30 AM (#5896197)
If I understand this correctly, the "interference" call had nothing to do with whether Turner had previously been inside or outside the three foot running lane between home and first. All that matters is that Gurriel reached for the throw from Peacock and was unable to make that catch due to Turner being in the way as he crossed first base. The fact that Turner was exactly where he was supposed to be and doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing is not to be considered a mitigating factor. And the fact that Peacock's throw was somewhat wild is irrelevant as well. Does that sum up Torre's position? If so, then the rule is crazy and so is any umpire or official that goes along with it.

How many times have we seen a runner leading off first base and the pitcher make a bad pick off throw that goes into the runner as he's diving back to the bag, often leading to the ball rolling to the RF stands and the runner taking second base and sometimes third? Is it Torre's judgement that every one of those bad pick offs was in fact an act of interference by the base runner against the first baseman? Crazy crazy crazy.
   3. Where have you gone Brady Anderson? Posted: October 30, 2019 at 05:40 AM (#5896199)
It’s one of those calls that is technically correct based on the rules. However, the rule pretty clearly has some flaws the way it is written. Turner was supposed to run outside the foul line, and then lunge awkwardly to first base once past Gurriel. There is basically no way for the runner to follow the rule as written on a play that close.
   4. TomH Posted: October 30, 2019 at 07:50 AM (#5896202)
I've seen leagues where a "double first base bag" is used, to give the batter-runner a lane to run while aiming for a bag that is in foul ground. I wonder if simply extending the first base bag a few (6?) inches into foul ground would correct the problem of a rule (run in your foul-ground lane) which batter-runners almost have to violate when they approach first.
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 08:56 AM (#5896209)
I think it's a defensible call. He was running inside the entire way, which is very clearly against the rules for this very type of play (and it makes all the sense in the world to require the offensive player to run in foul territory). If he's coming at the bag from the outside, where he's supposed to be, then it's possible there is no contact. And if there is contact, then he's more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

And I'd hate to see MLB change a pretty sensible rule simply for a play like this. Maybe you can clear up some language, but runners absolutely be required to run in foul territory here. It's safer for all involved.

   6. Brian Posted: October 30, 2019 at 08:56 AM (#5896210)
TOMH, I'd make it a full bag in foul ground or nothing. Giving the runner a 6 inch target to hit on the fly sounds like a recipe for a broken ankle.
   7. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:04 AM (#5896212)
If I understand this correctly, the "interference" call had nothing to do with whether Turner had previously been inside or outside the three foot running lane between home and first.

What makes you think that?

The more I think about this, the more I think it's actually a good rule. Turner was running inside the baseline, which almost certainly affected the throw. If he had been running in the lane like the rules say, the catcher would have had a better angle for the throw, which is the whole point of the rule.

Maybe Turner was running inside the line consciously to make it a tougher throw, or maybe he was instinctively running in the straightest line possible to first. Who can say? But either way, I went from being incredulous at the call at first to realizing it was correct and fair.

I'd suggest that people who want to criticize the rule actually familiarize themselves with it first. Because we're rapidly approaching territory where all the complaints seem based on misunderstanding what the rule actually says (including #1-3 in this thread). I posted it in Omnichatter last night and here it is again:

Rule 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 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 to avoid a fielder
attempting to field a batted ball;

Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The 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 or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the threefoot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first
base.
   8. Rally Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:18 AM (#5896218)
I've seen leagues where a "double first base bag" is used, to give the batter-runner a lane to run while aiming for a bag that is in foul ground.


We use that in softball. Unfortunately every season some moron still runs to the inside bag and lands on my ankle.
   9. Jack Sommers Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:35 AM (#5896226)
It was the right call

Watch this
   10. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:39 AM (#5896228)
It’s one of those calls that is technically correct based on the rules. However, the rule pretty clearly has some flaws the way it is written. Turner was supposed to run outside the foul line, and then lunge awkwardly to first base once past Gurriel. There is basically no way for the runner to follow the rule as written on a play that close.


Keep in mind that to be "inside the lane", all one need is for some part of the right foot to be touching some part of the line. Turner never did that. You can have 99% of your body to the right of the line and be legal and protected. It's not that onerous of a requirement.
   11. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:48 AM (#5896234)
I've seen a few people post this photo as supposed evidence that the umpires made a ridiculous call (or "horrendous," as this site has it). But it clearly shows the path that Turner was supposed to be in, and clearly shows that he is not (and had never been) in that path.
   12. salvomania Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:49 AM (#5896235)
It was the right call

Watch this

That video makes pretty clear that it was the right call, although a mitigating factor not covered in the video would be a throw that's essentially wild that hits the runner---that is, the 1b wouldn't be able to catch it regardless---which is very close to what happened, if not exactly what happened, here.

It's hard to tell from the view I just looked at and I'm too lazy to seek out other views, but that throw may have been wild (and hit the runner) whether or not Turner was inside the lane as he ran towards the base. Interestingly, the rule says that Turner can step inside the lane as he goes to land on the base---so, essentially where he was when he, the ball, and the 1b converged---but it's interference if there's contact and he WASN'T previously running inside the lane.
   13. salvomania Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:51 AM (#5896237)
Keep in mind that to be "inside the lane", all one need is for some part of the right foot to be touching some part of the line.


That's not how the rule quoted above reads:

a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane.
   14. Papa Squid Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:56 AM (#5896239)
Have probably seen this rule applied 3 or 4 times at Jays games over the past 30 some odd years so was well aware of the rule. Buck Martinez on the international feed was right on top of it. Out, correct call.

Tough luck for the Nats in the moment, but the baseball gods took care of them in the end.
   15. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:56 AM (#5896240)
If so, then the rule is crazy and so is any umpire or official that goes along with it.

I agree the rule could be improved, but can't emphatically disagree harder with the second part. For one, this isn't the first time this has happened - hey, look at this - and it would be utterly absurd if an umpire decided to just not enforce a rule that's existed for years and years.

OTOH,

The more I think about this, the more I think it's actually a good rule. Turner was running inside the baseline, which almost certainly affected the throw. If he had been running in the lane like the rules say, the catcher would have had a better angle for the throw, which is the whole point of the rule.

The pitcher, who fielded the throw on the 3rd base side here, had a plenty good enough angle and made a terrible throw. When there is a rule that is written in such a way that it rewards a team for a bad play, it should be re-evaluated.

Maybe you can clear up some language, but runners absolutely be required to run in foul territory here. It's safer for all involved.

Acknowledging ML's point in post 10 about how little you actually have to be in the lane, that actually doesn't make this play any safer. Turner still has to end up touching the bag, and the ball is meeting the glove right there eactly where Turner is going to be trying to touch the bag even if he were in the lane the entire time.

Regardless, the fastest way to any point is in a straight line; the current running lane makes it harder to do that for a baserunner so we're going to see plays like this happen (it's easier for a lefty hitter to go straight into the lane than a righty). That's why I think the orange softball base idea is really the most logical solution if you want to insist the runner runs in foul territory until they get to the bag.

Of course, the worst part of this rule is the fact that the runner on first has to go back to first, even when there's absolutely no chance at a play on him at 2b - he shouldn't get 3rd once the ball goes away, but he absolutely should be able to stay on 2nd.
   16. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:57 AM (#5896242)
If that was the correct call, then MLB needs to change the rule so that it isn't the correct call in the future, because the outcome of that play was dumb as hell and made MLB look bad to everyone who was watching it.
   17. Howie Menckel Posted: October 30, 2019 at 09:58 AM (#5896243)
the rule is crazy and so is any umpire or official that goes along with it.

yes, let's have each umpire create his own rulebook!

what could go wrong?
   18. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:01 AM (#5896248)
If I understand this correctly, the "interference" call had nothing to do with whether Turner had previously been inside or outside the three foot running lane between home and first.

What makes you think that?


Torre's quote sure seems to be saying that, which seems to be wrong:
“He was called out because he ran — there’s a 45-foot restraining line where you’re supposed to run as a baserunner in between those lines,” Torre said. “He ran to first base — that wasn’t the call. The call was the fact that he interfered with Guriel trying to catch the ball. You notice the glove came off his hand. That’s when Sam Holbrook called him out for basically interference.”
   19. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:06 AM (#5896254)
I really liked how they took an hour & a half to review an unreviewable call.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM (#5896256)
Acknowledging ML's point in post 10 about how little you actually have to be in the lane, that actually doesn't make this play any safer. Turner still has to end up touching the bag, and the ball is meeting the glove right there eactly where Turner is going to be trying to touch the bag even if he were in the lane the entire time.


Of course. But the rule itself, and adherence to it, is inherently safer for all involved. The infielder covers and gives a throwing lane to the inside of the bag - the runner runs to the outside. You can't eliminate plays like this or the Derrick Lee throw that lead to a collision, but the rule makes complete sense.
   21. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM (#5896257)
J.C. Martin lives!
   22. wjones Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:08 AM (#5896258)
Cartainly wasn't Holbrook's worst post-season call. Guess he will get lots of chances since he apparently will call multiple post season series now.
   23. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:08 AM (#5896259)
Of course, the worst part of this rule is the fact that the runner on first has to go back to first, even when there's absolutely no chance at a play on him at 2b - he shouldn't get 3rd once the ball goes away, but he absolutely should be able to stay on 2nd.


And if the interference was intentional, rather than accidental, would you feel the same way?

   24. Howie Menckel Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:13 AM (#5896266)
I really liked how they took an hour & a half to review an unreviewable call.

well, Joe Buck gamely claimed that what they were really doing was going over whether the Nationals' effort to protest the game could be allowed.

which doesn't quite make sense.

but on Monday Night Football this week, late in the third quarter the 0-6 Dolphins were credited with a close first down on a dive near midfield that may or may not have gotten the runner there against the 2-4 Steelers.

it took them TEN minutes - not "seemed like 10 minutes," but TEN minutes - to overturn the call.
   25. shoelesjoe Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:19 AM (#5896272)
What makes you think that?


Because when Turner “interfered” with Gurriel he was only half a step (if that) from the first base bag. He actually stepped on the bag before the errant throw hit him in the backside. In that instant Turner has to be in the spot running in that direction. Has. To. Be. What he was doing and where he was doing it three or four seconds before hand is irrelevant. If Turner had been inside the three foot lane while running to first or not he’s still got to cross the base. If the ball hits him while he’s five or ten or fifteen feet from crossing the bag while outside the lane then it would make sense to apply the interference rule. But when he’s actually at the bag, and is required by rule to step on it while running past? It’s nuts to call that interference. At some point common sense needs to be applied.

Also, the throw from the pitcher (not the catcher) was wild because it was hurried, not because Turner was ever in the way. He wasn’t. If the pitcher fields the ball and makes an accurate throw Turner might have been out by a hair. But to punish the Nats because an Astros fielder made a bad throw is piling insanity on top of insanity. The rule cannot have been meant to define interference as a runner at the base inhibiting a bad throw.
   26. John DiFool2 Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:21 AM (#5896274)
I'll just note that the follow-through of his swing left him significantly to the 3B side of home plate. Is he really supposed to swerve to the right by the 45 foot lane mark, then make a last-instant left-hand swerve back to the bag so as to step on it?

The lane shouldn't be in foul territory-it should be in fair.
   27. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5896277)
That's not how the rule quoted above reads:

a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane.


Oops. You're right. I wasn't entirely sure and shouldn't have posted without looking it up.
   28. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:24 AM (#5896278)
well, Joe Buck gamely claimed that what they were really doing was going over whether the Nationals' effort to protest the game could be allowed.

which doesn't quite make sense.

It doesn't make sense because it doesn't seem to be what happened, despite the claim. After the lengthy review the ump held up his arm in the out sign, confirming the call on the field. Why would he do that if they were actually discussing whether the Nats could protest?
   29. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:26 AM (#5896282)
And if the interference was intentional, rather than accidental, would you feel the same way?


Right. Interference is a strike liability rule. Intent doesn't matter. And it should be that way. Umpires have enough to do without having to judge intent, let alone deciding where to place the runner in the alternate scenario that the interference didn't occur. Same with obstruction. It doesn't matter if the fielder didn't intend to obstruct the runner. He gets the base award regardless.
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:28 AM (#5896284)
The lane shouldn't be in foul territory-it should be in fair.


That's just wrong. Yes, it's not a straight line from where the batter often ends up to first, but putting the lane in fair territory would either force the runner to run straight at the fielder covering the bag, or for the pitcher/catcher to throw across the runner's body to the first basemen. It's needlessly, and significantly, more dangerous to all involved.
   31. Jack Sommers Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:32 AM (#5896287)

We use that in softball. Unfortunately every season some moron still runs to the inside bag and lands on my ankle.


This is why I don't play softball anymore. I had a total knee replacement back in 2001. (Metal, Plastic...everything) I can still hit, throw, catch, all pretty good. But I can't really run, and the only position I could play due to mobility is 1st or Catcher. Most importantly I don't want to take the chance of someone running over my leg. It's just not worth the risk.

Miss the hell out of it.
   32. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:37 AM (#5896290)
Acknowledging ML's point in post 10 about how little you actually have to be in the lane, that actually doesn't make this play any safer. Turner still has to end up touching the bag, and the ball is meeting the glove right there eactly where Turner is going to be trying to touch the bag even if he were in the lane the entire time.


Well, you can never make it perfect, so you do the best mitigation you can, and make it strict liability. If the same thing occurs, but Turner is inside the lane, then he's safe.
   33. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:40 AM (#5896291)
Torre's explanation BTW was just bonkers. And delete the word "basically" from your vocabulary please.
   34. JL72 Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:42 AM (#5896295)
Right. Interference is a strike liability rule. Intent doesn't matter.


Sure. And that should apply to the out. But not clear why it would apply to other base runners. In this case, it is not like the interference prevented the fielders from getting another out. The runner on first was at least at second regardless of the outcome at first. I understand not allowing that runner to move to third, but making him go all the way back to first seems odd.
   35. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM (#5896307)
And if the interference was intentional, rather than accidental, would you feel the same way?

If Turner intentionally interfered, Gomes is still on 2nd and there's still no play on him. I feel like this is common sense.
   36. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM (#5896308)
The runners box has been there my entire life, and now people are arguing that it doesn't matter and the rule is stupid.

You can attempt to get the rule changed. But the call was 100% correct. Turner ran in fair territory for the entire play.
   37. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5896309)
You can't eliminate plays like this or the Derrick Lee throw that lead to a collision, but the rule makes complete sense.

You can add the extra base so the pitchers can't try and game the rule to get away with a bad play *and* make it safer *and* keep runners from trying to get in the way of a throw. Iow, putting the side base completely rules out any argument of intent and makes more sense.
   38. BackNine Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5896310)
I have been so agitated by the on-air and online commentary that I feel the need to contribute here. This is the only sane discussion of the incident that I can find. And to this community's credit, it was sane during the game chat.

I cannot believe that hall of fame level players still don't understand this rule. I learned it when I was playing Little League. My father told me that if I hit a nubber or bunted, that I had to run to the right of the first base foul line or risk being called for interference. It's just not that hard. Trea Turner should have known the rule and have angled himself toward the running lane as he ran to first. He doesn't have to "swerve" to do that -- he just can't take a line straight to the base after where he ended up after his swing. Everyone seems to think that a straight line path is his "right", but it's not. He has to clear that path for the last 45 feet so that the pitcher doesn't have to make a perfect throw around him.

Even if you think this is a bad rule (I don't, but there's room for debate I guess), it's still a rule. It's not an obscure rule; as I said, I was taught it in Little League for god's sake! And there's a good reason for it: it actually removes much of the umpire's "judgement". Without this rule, the umpire would have to judge who is more "at fault" with plays like this, which is really tough in real time. Instead, it's fairly cut and dried: did the runner interfere (yes, he hit Gurriel's glove) and was he out of his running lane (clearly yes.)

The only thing that's a bit tricky is the last 10 feet or so, when the runner has to aim for the bag. I still don't think he has to "swerve", but he does have to aim for the right side of the bag. Practically speaking, if Turner had done the right thing and had been running in his lane for the 45 feet but had come back to essentially straddle the line as he came up to the bag (see the photo in 11, where he clearly *isn't* straddling the line), I think the ump would not have called interference. If Turner had even shown a real effort to run where he was supposed to, I suspect he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt. But he didn't. It wasn't even close. He ran as if he didn't know the rule.
   39. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5896311)
Sure. And that should apply to the out. But not clear why it would apply to other base runners. In this case, it is not like the interference prevented the fielders from getting another out. The runner on first was at least at second regardless of the outcome at first. I understand not allowing that runner to move to third, but making him go all the way back to first seems odd.


In addition to what I wrote about, it's intended to be punitive in part. A team can receive no benefit form a player committing interference. Take another scenario. Runners on first and third, grounder to the right side heading to the OF hits the runner. Should the runner from 3rd be allowed to score? Or another. Runner on first gets a huge jump and looks to have stolen the base easily. Catcher throws down anyway, but while he's in the the act of throwing, the batter stumbles into him, committing interference. Should the runner still be granted 2B because they had no chance of getting him anyway?
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM (#5896316)
If Turner intentionally interfered, Gomes is still on 2nd and there's still no play on him. I feel like this is common sense.


And when Arod chopped down on Bronson Arroyo's arm, Jeter was sent back to first, even though he would have ended up on second also. And I don't recall anyone* complaining about that.

It's interference. If the offense commits it, they don't get to benefit from advancement. In this case, it seems unfair. In the Arod play, it seems just. And As Misirlou points out, asking umps to also identify intent on top of interference seems more trouble than it's worth. So, sometimes you're going to get a result that kind of sucks for one of the teams.


* Acknowledging that anything bad that falls upon a Yankee is, by definition, a good thing.
   41. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 10:58 AM (#5896319)
And As Misirlou points out, asking umps to also identify intent on top of interference seems more trouble than it's worth.


Think about how much controversy this play generated. Now add in a judgement of intent one way or another and multiply the angst tenfold.
   42. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:02 AM (#5896327)
It's interference. If the offense commits it, they don't get to benefit from advancement.

But I think Moses's argument is that the "benefit" in this play was 3rd base, not 2nd. 2nd was a result of the fielder's choice, and it doesn't make sense to take that away, too. Had the play been completed as the Astros intended it to be completed, there is a runner on 2nd. That's the default. Anything greater than that benefits the Nats, anything less than that benefits the Astros.
   43. BackNine Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5896328)
What if the runner heading to second was slow and the interference stopped him from getting doubled up? Do you want the umpire judging that along with the interference call itself? It seems simplest to send the runner back to first and not have the umpire forced to decide what would have happened without the interference.
   44. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:07 AM (#5896329)
Do you want the umpire judging that along with the interference call itself?

Yeah I don't see any problem with that. There are a lot of umps on the field! There should not be any issue.

EDIT: Umps have to make tons of judgement calls. The interference call itself is a judgement call. It's their job.
   45. spycake Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:08 AM (#5896330)
Torre's quote sure seems to be saying that, which seems to be wrong:


Torre's quote sounds jumbled enough ("restraining line"?) that it probably shouldn't be considered an official statement on the play. :)
   46. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:09 AM (#5896331)
The way the rule is written, the runners must return to the base they were occupying when the ball was pitched.

Why that is, I couldn't tell you.
   47. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:10 AM (#5896332)
But I think Moses's argument is that the "benefit" in this play was 3rd base, not 2nd. 2nd was a result of the fielder's choice, and it doesn't make sense to take that away, too. Had the play been completed as the Astros intended it to be completed, there is a runner on 2nd. That's the default. Anything greater than that benefits the Nats, anything less than that benefits the Astros.


So you think Jeter should have remained on second after the Arod play?

Because that's the rule. When the offense commits interference, the play is dead and the runners are sent back to their original base. It's intentionally punitive, and I don't see a problem with that. As with all rules, sometimes a team is going to get dinged more than seems appropriate, but do you really want to throw a lot more judgment and discretion into the play?

   48. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:10 AM (#5896333)
Had the play been completed as the Astros intended it to be completed, there is a runner on 2nd.


Very, very likely. But not 100%. There is a small, but non-zero chance that the runner could have screwed up somehow and been thrown out. The interference robbed the Astros of that small, but again, non-zero chance.
   49. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:10 AM (#5896334)
Torre's quote sure seems to be saying that, which seems to be wrong:


Torre's quote sounds jumbled enough ("restraining line"?) that it probably shouldn't be considered an official statement on the play. :)


Torre's gotta stop hanging out with Giuliani...
   50. spycake Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM (#5896335)
And if the interference was intentional, rather than accidental, would you feel the same way?


I get what you are saying, but in order for there to be interference at all (at first), the defense has to throw to first, which is basically conceding second base to the baserunner. It's not really "rewarding" the interfering team to leave the baserunner at second in that scenario.
   51. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:12 AM (#5896336)
So you think Jeter should have remained on second after the Arod play?

No, because of the Yankees Corollary, but yes, according to common sense.

(And I know "that's the rule," I feel like we're discussing the "should it be" part at this point.)
   52. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:18 AM (#5896339)
No, because of the Yankees Corollary, but yes, according to common sense.


So there's no risk to trying the Arod chop. At worst, you're in the exact same situation. But if you get away with your attempt to break the rules, there are no outs, you're on base and the lead runner is on third.

   53. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:19 AM (#5896340)
Yeah I don't see any problem with that. There are a lot of umps on the field! There should not be any issue.

EDIT: Umps have to make tons of judgement calls.


Sure. But whenever practical, MLB has decided to remove judgement and put in a black and white rule that applies to all situations. And that's a good thing. Umpires should be injecting their opinions into the game as little as possible. Do you really want Joe West et al getting more opportunities to opine on what will happen?
   54. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5896342)
So there's no risk to trying the Arod chop. At worst, you're in the exact same situation. At best, there's no outs, you're on base and the lead runner is on third.


Exactly. Well stated. There HAS to be a consequence for interfering, otherwise it will happen a lot more frequently.

edit: and your revised post is even better : )
   55. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:24 AM (#5896345)
So there's no risk to trying the Arod chop. At worst, you're in the exact same situation. But if you get away with your attempt to break the rules, there are no outs, you're on base and the lead runner is on third.

Are there any other examples of this kind of on the field, in game punishment? Genuine question. What happens to the runners when a guy's bat is found to be corked, or something like that? Or a ball scuffed, etc.?
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:25 AM (#5896347)
Because when Turner “interfered” with Gurriel he was only half a step (if that) from the first base bag. He actually stepped on the bag before the errant throw hit him in the backside. In that instant Turner has to be in the spot running in that direction. Has. To. Be. What he was doing and where he was doing it three or four seconds before hand is irrelevant.

By the rule, it's not irrelevant.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM (#5896349)
What happens to the runners when a guy's bat is found to be corked, or something like that?


When a guy's bat is corked, the guy is thrown out of the game. They don't just make him get a different bat. So that's pretty punitive.

It seems perfectly reasonable that the rules would want to discourage interference. They want Trea Turner to be running in foul territory because it's safer. They don't want guys trying to dislodge the baseball from the pitcher's mitt with a Kung Fu chop. So preventing baserunner advancement when interference takes place strikes me as perfectly logical.
   58. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:31 AM (#5896352)
When a guy's bat is corked, the guy is thrown out of the game. They don't just make him get a different bat. So that's pretty punitive.


Bringing an illegal bat to the plate, whether intentionally or not, is grounds for immediate ejection. In HS, if the bat is discovered before the end of the PA, the player (and head coach) are ejected and a new batter takes his place and assumes the count. If it is discovered after the ball is put in play, the defense can choose to take the result of the play (if, for example, he hit into a DP), or call the batter out and all runners go back to their original base. I don't know the MLB rule.
   59. salvomania Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:34 AM (#5896355)
From the article in Post 15 (Maddon ejected over interference call in 2018):

Contreras, Miller said, was not called out for interference because he was inside the foul line but because, in doing so, he impeded Adams' ability to catch the throw from Rendon.

Maddon said he knew which rule the umpires were enforcing there, but he thought Rendon's throw was so off-target that Contreras' path to the base had no impact on the play. Rendon's throw, as Maddon saw it, was going to be errant either way.

"Regardless of whether he was inside the line or not, that throw was so far off inside, it had nothing to do with the baserunner," Maddon said. "There's no judgement [in the rule], it's cut and dry, and I think that's the inappropriate part of the rule."

Miller, however, said there is some judgement when it comes to that rule, but his example of an uncatchable throw to first base was much more extreme than what happened.

"If [Rendon] would've thrown the ball over everybody's head," Miller said, interference would not have been called. But "as long as the throw is somewhere in the same neighborhood, the guy has to be in the lane."
   60. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:34 AM (#5896356)
In that instant Turner has to be in the spot running in that direction. Has. To. Be. What he was doing and where he was doing it three or four seconds before hand is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant. he could be in the exact spot, but he more likely would not be. plus, he would be angling from right to left and not left to right, giving the fielder a better throwing angle.
   61. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:40 AM (#5896359)
I don't think a dead ball outcome in this case is really even punitive. It's just an effort to make a rule that you can apply to any situation.

For example, say that the runner now on 2nd had made a wide turn and was trying to get to third, but it would have been clear that a good throw from first would get him. Without the interference, the defense would have had a good chance to get him out, but because of the interference, a play cannot be made. Who can say how it would have turned out? It doesn't seem fair to just send him back to 2nd, because the fielding team was denied a chance to get an out. The team at-bat, in that case, may well have actually benefitted from the interference, getting bailed out from a bad decision by the runner.

A dead ball just seems fair to me. Punitive would be calling extra baserunners out. Just going back to how things were seems like the common-sense solution, because what you don't want, as Misirlou says, is umps just making ad hoc decisions all over the place.
   62. salvomania Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM (#5896364)
In that instant Turner has to be in the spot running in that direction. Has. To. Be. What he was doing and where he was doing it three or four seconds before hand is irrelevant.


By the language of the rule, had Turner been in that exact spot AFTER having been previously running in the "lane," he would not have been called out for interference. He's only called out for interference if he had been prior to that running outside the "lane."
   63. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:45 AM (#5896365)
Also, Torre's statement is jumbled, but what he's doing is making a distinction between a) getting called out for running inside the baseline, and b) getting called out for interference as a result of running inside the baseline.

In other words, if Turner hadn't made contact with the 1B, and Turner had beat a clean throw ... then he wouldn't have been called out for running inside the baseline.
   64. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:51 AM (#5896371)
For example, say that the runner now on 2nd had made a wide turn and was trying to get to third, but it would have been clear that a good throw from first would get him. Without the interference, the defense would have had a good chance to get him out, but because of the interference, a play cannot be made. Who can say how it would have turned out? It doesn't seem fair to just send him back to 2nd, because the fielding team was denied a chance to get an out.


I'll take my coke without caffeine please.
   65. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5896372)
Smoltz said during the broadcast that pitchers and catchers are taught to throw it into the runner's back in that kind of situation, if it's going to be a close play at first, and hope the umps bail them out.

If the idea of returning all runners to the original base is to discourage attempts at interference, I guess that makes some sense. But from Smoltz's telling at least, the opposite is already happening. I think that's why I'd prefer the umps allow (in last night's case) the runner to stay at 2nd. But yeah, I get all the judgement call stuff, ideally those are as limited as possible.
   66. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:54 AM (#5896374)
In other words, if Turner hadn't made contact with the 1B, and Turner had beat a clean throw ... then he wouldn't have been called out for running inside the baseline.


Yes. that's the part that many people seem to be missing. Tons of comments in the chatter like "I see guys running outside that lane all the time. Why aren't they out?"
   67. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:54 AM (#5896375)
For example, say that the runner now on 2nd had made a wide turn and was trying to get to third, but it would have been clear that a good throw from first would get him. Without the interference, the defense would have had a good chance to get him out, but because of the interference, a play cannot be made. Who can say how it would have turned out? It doesn't seem fair to just send him back to 2nd, because the fielding team was denied a chance to get an out.

This is just too much speculation, I think. Not the same situation, but when runners sometimes get screwed on ground rule doubles/fan interference, this same argument could also apply (maybe they would have broken their leg rounding third, and if the ball was still in play they would have been thrown out!).
   68. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:58 AM (#5896379)
but when runners sometimes get screwed on ground rule doubles/fan interference, this same argument could also apply (maybe they would have broken their leg rounding third, and if the ball was still in play they would have been thrown out!).


I don't think this example is making the point that you think it does. It's precisely why there is a strict rule relating to runner advancement. Or are you arguing that there should be judgement there too? What level of certainty would you require for judgement to allow an extra base? 80%? 50.1%?
   69. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM (#5896380)
Yes. that's the part that many people seem to be missing. Tons of comments in the chatter like "I see guys running outside that lane all the time. Why aren't they out?"

Yes you have to BOTH 1) run outside the lane, AND 2) interfere with the fielder.
   70. spycake Posted: October 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM (#5896382)
So there's no risk to trying the Arod chop. At worst, you're in the exact same situation. But if you get away with your attempt to break the rules, there are no outs, you're on base and the lead runner is on third.


That's well said. I can see how the rule makes sense now.
   71. spycake Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:00 PM (#5896384)
Torre's gotta stop hanging out with Giuliani...


I'll wait for Torre to butt-dial a reporter to hear the "real" explanation of the play!
   72. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:01 PM (#5896385)
This is just too much speculation, I think.

Gosh, I deliberately drew up a scenario that wasn't a struck-by-lightning sort of unlikelihood. Runners try to take extra bases all the time.

You need a rule to apply to all situations, not just pick-and-choose when to apply it. The ground-rule double rule is a good rule for the same reason. Sometimes it's clear that a runner would have scored. Sometimes it's far less clear. Sometimes it's downright dubious.

But the whole point of a rule is to be a rule - otherwise, why bother? Just have umps take wild guesses on every play.
   73. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:06 PM (#5896390)
I keep hearing online from people saying they've never seen the same play called as interference.

The second play in this video is almost a carbon copy of what happened last night (except the runner is further in the field of play).
   74. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:19 PM (#5896402)
I don't think this example is making the point that you think it does.

No no, but I was totally unclear. I'm not sure it was worth the effort on my part to try to rewrite it all more clearly, so just ignore it, I was just thinking out loud.
   75. jmurph Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:21 PM (#5896404)
But the whole point of a rule is to be a rule - otherwise, why bother? Just have umps take wild guesses on every play.

I think this kind of wording is loading the argument in your favor- one person's "wild guess" is another person's "judgment call," ie, the thing umpires do constantly.
   76. Hot Wheeling American Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:26 PM (#5896409)
The second play in this video is almost a carbon copy of what happened last night (except the runner is further in the field of play).

That's a big exception! No way of knowing, of course, but I think if Turner's entire body was on the grass last night, there would have been far less confusion and angst about the call.
   77. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:30 PM (#5896413)
The pitcher, who fielded the throw on the 3rd base side here, had a plenty good enough angle and made a terrible throw. When there is a rule that is written in such a way that it rewards a team for a bad play, it should be re-evaluated.
I’m not sure we need the rule at all. We live with balls hitting runners, and fielders throwing around runners, at every other base, is 1st really that different? If it is, it seems to be because a runner’s path on dribblers down the 1st base line blocks more of the throwing lane than plays at other bases. However, there’s no reason to treat balls hit otherwise the same. Last night, it was a dribbler toward third base where the fielder had a clear throwing lane but made a poor throw that hit Turner. I don’t think the rule should reward or encourage that. Lastly, the rule isn’t a strict liability offense, runners run outside the proper lane all the time, mostly without consequence. It’s only an issue if they “interfere” by being where they shouldn’t be. By my eye, Turner was making his last stride and the ball hit him as he was touching the bag, when he had to be in fair territory to touch the bag and had a right to do so, which has me questioning the umpire’s judgement. MLB would be well-served to take a fresh look at the rule goIng forward.
   78. Kurt Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM (#5896419)
That's a big exception! No way of knowing, of course, but I think if Turner's entire body was on the grass last night, there would have been far less confusion and angst about the call.


Also, the throw in that clip didn't hit the runner at all. It was comfortably to the left of the runner, landed in the first baseman's glove before the runner got there, and the runner knocked it out of the glove.

Last night's throw hit Turner in the lower right leg simultaneously with his left leg touching the bag.
   79. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:55 PM (#5896431)
I’m not sure we need the rule at all. We live with balls hitting runners, and fielders throwing around runners, at every other base, is 1st really that different? If it is, it seems to be because a runner’s path on dribblers down the 1st base line blocks more of the throwing lane than plays at other bases. However, there’s no reason to treat balls hit otherwise the same.


Well, first base is different, in that unlike 2nd and 3rd, the runner is allowed to run through and past the base at full speed and upright. It's reasonable to make some rule that at least attempts to mitigate the possibility of full on collisions.
   80. Joey B. Posted: October 30, 2019 at 12:55 PM (#5896432)
It's the stupidest rule in the game, and I've felt for a long time it should be changed. Hopefully this helps to make that happen.

Every single batter in baseball runs to first base the same exact way: in a straight line. For right-handed batters this straight line naturally goes slightly inside the baseline. 99.99% of the time it doesn't matter at all; it only ends up mattering when a fielder makes a horrible throw that results in either the ball or the first baseman colliding with the runner.

The fact that the strictest interpretation and enforcement of the rule has the end result of rewarding a fielder for making a horrible throw tells you how absolutely idiotic the rule is to begin with and how badly it needs to be changed.
   81. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 01:05 PM (#5896435)
I don't have a problem with the rule itself. I know that a baserunner has to run on the foul side of first base.

My problem is the application to this particular play. It was irrelevant where Turner had run prior to arriving at first since he got there at the same time as the ball and had to be allowed to step on the base. Had he run the entire length of the first base line in foul territory, he STILL would have taken that last step exactly where he did. The "interference" happens due to a poor throw, and the baserunner should not be held responsible for that when the act that caused the contact - Turner stepping on first base - is allowed by rule.

Maybe the rule could be clarified a bit, but if it's not, I don't have any issue with it. I have an issue with it being applied in this specific instance. Turner's act should have been ruled legal in that it was his final step toward the bag.
   82. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 01:08 PM (#5896438)
The fact that the strictest interpretation and enforcement of the rule has the end result of rewarding a fielder for making a horrible throw tells you how absolutely idiotic the rule is to begin with and how badly it needs to be changed.


it was only a horrible throw because the runner was upright, which he is allowed to be at first base only. If it was a force at second to third, it would have been an unremarkable throw and a clear, easy out, because the runner would have been on his butt and nowhere near the ball or the glove. It's fair and reasonable to force the runner to make some accommodation to mitigate his outsized advantage.
   83. JL72 Posted: October 30, 2019 at 01:15 PM (#5896443)
So there's no risk to trying the Arod chop. At worst, you're in the exact same situation. But if you get away with your attempt to break the rules, there are no outs, you're on base and the lead runner is on third.


Isn't the risk that you get called for an automatic out, as opposed to not interfering, having the first baseman miss the catch, and ending up with runners on first and third? Sure it is a small chance overall, but probably not all that different than the runner at second rounding to far or otherwise doing something that would get them thrown out.

That being said, it still might be worth it to want to penalize interference by moving everyone back to where they started. I just don't think that saying that there is no down-side to an interference call is always correct.

   84. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 01:40 PM (#5896460)
Isn't the risk that you get called for an automatic out, as opposed to not interfering, having the first baseman miss the catch, and ending up with runners on first and third? Sure it is a small chance overall, but probably not all that different than the runner at second rounding to far or otherwise doing something that would get them thrown out.


That's reasonable. But if you don't penalize the offending team, it would incentivize them to develop tactics that make it more likely to get away with interference. Obviously the ARod chop would never fly, but similar to pitch framing, we might not want to see "interference specialists", players who's contribution to the game is little more than a unique still designed to fool the umpires more than the average player could.
   85. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:02 PM (#5896481)
Torre's quote, while a bit jumbled, doesn't really conflict with the ruling on the field. I think Torre is saying he wasn't called out for being outside the lane and interfering with the throw; he was called out for interfering with the first baseman trying to receive the throw.

“He was called out because he ran — there’s a 45-foot restraining line where you’re supposed to run as a baserunner in between those lines,” Torre said. “He ran to first base — that wasn’t the call. The call was the fact that he interfered with Guriel trying to catch the ball. You notice the glove came off his hand. That’s when Sam Holbrook called him out for basically interference.”


I think people who believe this rule is a massive imposition on the runner haven't really read the rule:

The batter-runner is permitted to exit the threefoot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.


I mean, he should be able to just run straight along the actual line and then there's no issue. For a righty batter it won't be an exact straight line to the base, but as long as the rule is clear I don't see that as a major problem. It's not requiring him to "swerve" as someone upthread described it, just take a slightly indirect path. This rule only really has an effect in situations where the throw is coming from the home plate vicinity; on other plays the runner shouldn't have to think about it. But if he's in the lane he can stick out his foot to touch the base as he runs past it, or he can stride toward first base in his last couple of steps. And if he does come into contact with the 1B in that situation, he'll be safe.

If that was the correct call, then MLB needs to change the rule so that it isn't the correct call in the future, because the outcome of that play was dumb as hell and made MLB look bad to everyone who was watching it.

I think MLB only looked bad because the announcers didn't know the rule, or couldn't properly explain it. My initial reaction was "that was a bs call" but as soon as someone posted the actual text of the rule in the game chatter I realized it was the correct ruling. MLB should simply make sure that the announcers know the rules.
   86. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:06 PM (#5896486)

it was only a horrible throw because the runner was upright, which he is allowed to be at first base only.

It was only a bad throw because the runner knocked the fielder's glove off. Otherwise it was well placed.
   87. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:07 PM (#5896488)
it was only a horrible throw because the runner was upright, which he is allowed to be at first base only. If it was a force at second to third, it would have been an unremarkable throw and a clear, easy out, because the runner would have been on his butt and nowhere near the ball or the glove. It's fair and reasonable to force the runner to make some accommodation to mitigate his outsized advantage.


A couple things here - is a runner forced by rule to slide at second and third? That's what you seem to imply, and I don't think that's the case, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I think runners are allowed to go into second and third standing up, even if it's kind of dumb.

As a hypothetical follow up to that: runner on first base, there's a chopper hit to first. The runner got a good jump and the first baseman throws low to second. Is the runner ruled out for interference if the shortstop reaches to catch the ball and the runner makes contact with his glove during the slide? I don't THINK I've ever seen that ruled interference, but again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think it's fair and reasonable to force a runner at first base to take an odd stride into the base to accommodate a throw. I agree that a runner should run on the foul side of the first base line so that a catcher throwing up the line has a target. But, first, that wasn't the case here. The ball was well up the third base line, giving the pitcher a wide target to make a throw. Second, and more importantly, the final step of the runner HAS to be in fair territory, since that's where the base is. So at that point, the runner has to be allowed to take the step that Turner did which resulted in contact with the first baseman.
   88. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5896494)
I think people who believe this rule is a massive imposition on the runner haven't really read the rule:

The batter-runner is permitted to exit the threefoot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.


I have read the rule, and I think if you determine that Turner's final step on this play is not allowed under this rule, it is an imposition on the baserunner. Maybe not massive, but certainly unreasonable in my opinion.
   89. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:15 PM (#5896495)
Second, and more importantly, the final step of the runner HAS to be in fair territory, since that's where the base is. So at that point, the runner has to be allowed to take the step that Turner did which resulted in contact with the first baseman.

He can be in fair territory all the way leading up to the bag, since the rule is explicit that he can be on the line. Turner was not on the line, he was to the inside of the line, which was not necessary.

EDIT: Look at this photo, for example.
   90. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:18 PM (#5896498)
I think MLB only looked bad because the announcers didn't know the rule, or couldn't properly explain it. My initial reaction was "that was a bs call" but as soon as someone posted the actual text of the rule in the game chatter I realized it was the correct ruling. MLB should simply make sure that the announcers know the rules.

This is probably the truest thing posted in this thread. It was a complete embarrassment by the Fox crew to not be able to clarify this. I can even forgive Buck/Smoltz for not knowing the rule offhand, but by the time the review was over, Buck should have had the rule in hand and offered the clarification on-air. But not only did that not happen, Buck kept whining about it! It was complete broadcasting incompetence.
   91. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5896500)
So I might change my originally stated opinion that the rule is fine. I do think that the umpire used poor judgment in applying the rule in this case, but that's probably not incredibly supportable. I think the rule probably needs to change, since it is onerous, particularly on right-handed batters, to follow it to the letter. I agree completely with Doug Glanville here (sorry, paywall, but seriously, get The Athletic):

https://theathletic.com/1336629/2019/10/30/glanville-ive-despised-the-running-lane-rule-since-i-was-a-player-heres-why-it-needs-to-change/
   92. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:20 PM (#5896501)

I have read the rule, and I think if you determine that Turner's final step on this play is not allowed under this rule, it is an imposition on the baserunner. Maybe not massive, but certainly unreasonable in my opinion.


His final step is fine, he just need to start that step 3 feet to the right. He can't be where he was before that step.
   93. Brian C Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:22 PM (#5896502)
That Larry Brown guy linked to in #89 seems like a complete moron ... rules don't matter because COMMON SENSE!!
   94. salvomania Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:22 PM (#5896504)
He can be in fair territory all the way leading up to the bag, since the rule is explicit that he can be on the line. Turner was not on the line, he was to the inside of the line, which was not necessary.

He CANNOT be in fair territory up the line, the rule is explicit that he MUST be in the lane, which includes having his feet ON the line of the lane (but not outside the line):
The 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 or on the lines marking the lane.
   95. The Duke Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:23 PM (#5896506)
The Ted Barrett video is helpful. But note he starts his conversation saying the rule was put in so that the “catcher” has a clear line. This plays involves the pitcher (or possibly the 3rd baseman if he had charged). The purpose of the rule is to give the catcher a clear line - so yes, I guess you can say it technically applies but that’s not the purpose of the rule. Applying it the way the ump applied it basically rewards Houston for committing an error. The umps blew it
   96. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:24 PM (#5896508)
He can be in fair territory all the way leading up to the bag, since the rule is explicit that he can be on the line. Turner was not on the line, he was to the inside of the line, which was not necessary.

EDIT: Look at this photo, for example.


Actually, I don't think that's true - I think he has to be in foul territory for the final 45 feet to the bag according to the rule. However, assuming that he stepped with his left foot to the center of the base, his body would have ended up in the exact same position as it did when he made contact with Gurriel. He wasn't significantly inside the line where it would have changed anything about his body position in making that last step. And that's why I think the call was poor judgment.

That photo shows what the real problem is: the rule, if it was applied correctly, rewards the Astros for terrible footwork on Gurriel's part and a terrible throw by Peacock.

Edit: Sorry, changed "right foot" to "left foot".
   97. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:26 PM (#5896510)
A couple things here - is a runner forced by rule to slide at second and third? That's what you seem to imply, and I don't think that's the case, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I think runners are allowed to go into second and third standing up, even if it's kind of dumb.


I was using the term allowed in the sense that they are allowed to overrun the base and not be put out. yes, they are allowed to run full speed into second or third, but that would be a completely counter-productive tactic, so they don't. just like sliding into first (when it's not a tag play) is. Thus players will, almost always, go into first upright, and will, almost without exception, especially now with the new slide rules, go into second and third sliding.
   98. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:27 PM (#5896512)
He CANNOT be in fair territory up the line, the rule is explicit that he MUST be in the lane, which includes having his feet ON the line of the lane (but not outside the line):

Exactly. The line is fair territory.
   99. JAHV Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:27 PM (#5896513)
His final step is fine, he just need to start that step 3 feet to the right. He can't be where he was before that step.


If you think that part of the rule applies in this case, then the rule needs to change. Where he was before that final step was irrelevant to this play based on where the ball was fielded and thrown from.
   100. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: October 30, 2019 at 02:28 PM (#5896514)
the rule is explicit that he MUST be in the lane, which includes having his feet ON the line of the lane


Which is fair territory.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNicholas Castellanos deal with Reds | MLB.com
(28 - 8:17am, Jan 28)
Last: Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa

NewsblogESPN is reportedly removing Jessica Mendoza from Sunday Night Baseball
(1 - 8:14am, Jan 28)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogDustin Pedroia and the Pricey Guarantees of MLB Contracts
(5 - 8:01am, Jan 28)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogClass action lawsuit filed against MLB, Astros, Red Sox on behalf of DraftKings players
(10 - 7:51am, Jan 28)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogStarling Marte, D-backs trade | MLB.com
(32 - 7:50am, Jan 28)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogMLB Umpires to Explain Replay Review Decisions Via Microphone for 2020 Season
(5 - 7:45am, Jan 28)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(766 - 7:15am, Jan 28)
Last: TFTIO is building his own mealworm farm

NewsblogWhere a Mookie Betts, Nolan Arenado or Francisco Lindor trade would rank among winter blockbusters
(17 - 5:11am, Jan 28)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogRyan Braun knows 'it's possible' this is his final year with Brewers, and perhaps as player
(12 - 1:52am, Jan 28)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMLB rumors: Former Giants GM Bobby Evans interviewed for Astros job
(2 - 11:02pm, Jan 27)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogFortified White Sox say they’re ready to contend again
(17 - 10:17pm, Jan 27)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogRon Darling believes Nationals are vindicated for Strasburg shutdown
(36 - 10:05pm, Jan 27)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 1-27-2020
(58 - 9:45pm, Jan 27)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogOrange Coast College baseball coach John Altobelli died in Kobe helicopter crash
(9 - 9:09pm, Jan 27)
Last: "RMc", the superbatsman

NewsblogJustin Turner on Astros' 2017 World Series Title: 'It's Hard to Feel They Earned It'
(25 - 7:43pm, Jan 27)
Last: Sunday silence

Page rendered in 0.7686 seconds
46 querie(s) executed