Meyers was out of the lane he was supposed to be in the entire way to first, but at the time the ball hit him he was exactly where he was supposed to be.

I agree with Jose that they should put an alternate base in foul territory (or a double-wide base that extends to foul territory). I also feel that if they implement the foul base the rule should state that the batter-runner MUST run to the foul part of the base or be called out for interference.

Meyers was out of the lane he was supposed to be in the entire way to first, but at the time the ball hit him he was exactly where he was supposed to be.

But is that because the batter started out outside the lines? Because I can see the catcher, in the moment, more worried about getting the ball to first and thus throwing in the proper running lane.

Ignoring the specific call here the general issue is a hobby horse of mine. I don’t understand why MLB doesn’t implement the softball base rule Put a “runner’s base” on the foul side of first base. Right now there is just no way for a runner to stay in the runner’s lane and touch the base.

That's not quite true. It's probably true that it's impossible to stay in the proper lane and not touch the bag with your right foot.

On the one hand, I understand the need for the softball/LL bases on plays like this. On the other, they're an aesthetic abomination, so I'm kind of torn.

The biggest problem for the baserunner is they often start their sprint to first quite far inside fair territory, and it's a long way to go to get back into foul territory when you're also trying to get to first as quickly as possible.

But is that because the batter started out outside the lines? Because I can see the catcher, in the moment, more worried about getting the ball to first and thus throwing in the proper running lane.

No. The throw went directly over the bag, and hit Meyers in the head as he got there. The 1B would have caught the ball if his glove hadn't been impeded by Meyers' head.

The biggest problem for the baserunner is they often start their sprint to first quite far inside fair territory, and it's a long way to go to get back into foul territory when you're also trying to get to first as quickly as possible.

If they think they have a chance at a double they seem to have no problem running into the grass in foul territory. Running on the grass in fair territory is a choice. And yeah, we know why they make the choice. The rules state that they ought not to make that choice, and indicate penalties when they interfere with the play in that manner.

If they think they have a chance at a double they seem to have no problem running into the grass in foul territory.

That's because they're not running straight at first and making a 90-degree turn, ballplayers sadly not being built with Dyson Ball technology. But the reason that players routinely find themselves on the wrong side of the line in situations like this is because they're making a beeline to the base from their starting spot, which is usually well in front of home. Running into foul territory from there is extremely unnatural.

RH batters run to third, LH to first. :-) No positional shifting between batters of course so 2B and SS both have to learn to turn the DP, 3B have to learn to receive throws, might even make it more viable to start LHTs at 3B. I can't decide if runners alternate counter- and clockwise movement based o the batter or we just have runners going in both directions which would be cool! (I am 99.9999% joking.)

https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2023/2023-06/14/75246ed0-d6ae7bf7-3a8f7c10-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

Right handed batters, like this play, start on the fair side of the first base line. Watch the replay in the second half of this link. He isn't "choosing" to run in fair territory, it is just natural. You can argue that he doesn't do enough to get back there.

I think this should be interference. The batter/baserunner may start a couple of feet into fair territory, but it's not that hard to veer to the right slightly on your way to first, to get back to the baseline. The runner didn't do that here, he ran in fair territory the whole way, and made the catcher have to throw around him (which he didn't).
EDIT: See esp. frame at 0:23

I believe most of us have seen far less intrusive base runners called out for interference. My pet peeve is the dribbler up the 3rd base line that the catcher fields with a clear throwing lane to first, but his throw sails into the runner rather than at the 1st baseman, with the runner still called out. Lots of inconsistent umpiring on these calls, IMHO.

I believe most of us have seen far less intrusive base runners called out for interference.

I don't know how you're seeing that. I think you could call this interference, but this is about as close a call as you possibly have. The fact that he was running in fair territory the entire time is not relevant. All that matters is where he is when the ball strikes him, and in this case, it strikes him pretty much simultaneously to him reaching first.

How is the rule written? In terms of the spirit of the law, I think the interference occurs as soon as the C doesn't have a clear throwing lane (and the runner is in fair territory). The C shouldn't have to choose between nailing the guy in the back or moving to create a throwing lane. So basically, as soon as the C pivots to first with a possible play, the interference has occurred. But of course if the rule isn't written that way, then it's not.

Here there is also the question of whether he can interfere with a throw where it's not clear it would have beaten the runner anyway. Anyway, as I've uunderstood the rule (not worth much), the runner's out. I'll also agree that, as I understand the rule, it's a bit unfair to RHBs and essentially puts the runner in the position of choosing between making it an easier DP or interfering by running directly to the bag.

The 1B could have done a better job of giving the C a target. Easier for a LHT 1B and pointless/counterproductive if the C throws it into the runner anyway.

The C shouldn't have to choose between nailing the guy in the back or moving to create a throwing lane. So basically, as soon as the C pivots to first with a possible play, the interference has occurred. But of course if the rule isn't written that way, then it's not.f

It sure as #### didn't happen here. The catcher received the ball and immediately fired to first. The runner's position had zero bearing on where he was throwing the ball, unless he was specifically trying to hit him.

By the way, I found this on the subject (it's not MLB's rule book, which seems thin on the subject. I do believe the first point is the MLB perspective, not Walt's standard above):

if there is interference, the interference is on the fielder receiving the ball at first base and not on the fielder throwing the ball from the vicinity of home plate. This is very important when applying the rule. You're going to get managers arguing that the runner caused a fielder to throw wild, or not throw at all, but these are not valid arguments.

Second, noticing that first base itself (the bag) is outside the running lane, the runner is permitted by rule to step out of the running lane for the purpose of touching first base.

I'm curious how that relates to the runner's final position here. Obviously, he wasn't in the running lane at any point, but as interference only applies when the fielder is trying to catch the ball, at which point he would be legally entitled to that particular patch of ground, it certainly lends itself open to interpretation.

Where's misirlou when you need him?

How is the rule written? In terms of the spirit of the law, I think the interference occurs as soon as the C doesn't have a clear throwing lane (and the runner is in fair territory). The C shouldn't have to choose between nailing the guy in the back or moving to create a throwing lane. So basically, as soon as the C pivots to first with a possible play, the interference has occurred. But of course if the rule isn't written that way, then it's not.

The rule in this situation has nothing to do with the catcher's ability to throw to first. It's about the fact that the player fielding the throw is obstructed from doing so.

If the umpire determines that the baserunner has interfered with the player taking the throw at first base by running to the left of the foul line or to the right of the runner's lane, the baserunner can be called for interference.

Where's misirlou when you need him?

Heh. It's a tough one. Interference/obstruction is probably the toughest call an umpire has to make. On marginal calls, it's probably best to go with "no foul, play on". This was no way clear cut, and I would concur with the ruling. The runner does have the right to be out of the lane slightly in order to touch the bag and that's where he was when the ball hit him (or he hit the glove, I don't recall). The fact that he wa out of the lane prior to the throw is irrelevant.

The runner didn't do that here, he ran in fair territory the whole way, and made the catcher have to throw around him (which he didn't).

Completely disagree.

It's a terrible throw by the catcher. Look at around 0:24---the baserunner is completely in the dirt lane (albeit to the left side of the chalk line), and the C has a clear path to the 1B, who is a huge target providing a good three full feet (if not more) of space to the infield side in which to receive the ball.

At 0:24 the catcher's throw is heading directly towards the back/head of the baserunner. He essentially threw it directly at the base, and not to the inside of the base, where his teammate was waiting with his glove prepared to catch an accurate throw.

At 0:26 of that clip, the ball, glove, and baserunner's head are essentially occupying the same space. If anyone is to blame here it is the catcher for not making an accurate throw to the 1b.

If this is the typical throw made by a catcher on every play to first, they would hit the runner 99% of the time. I don't see how in the world the runner could be at fault for obstruction. A good---not perfect, or extraordinary---throw gets the runner here (assuming it arrives in time, which isn't clear that it even would have). He didn't have to thread a needle, he just needed to hit a 3- or 4-foot-wide target.

Heh. It's a tough one. Interference/obstruction is probably the toughest call an umpire has to make. On marginal calls, it's probably best to go with "no foul, play on". This was no way clear cut, and I would concur with the ruling. The runner does have the right to be out of the lane slightly in order to touch the bag and that's where he was when the ball hit him (or he hit the glove, I don't recall). The fact that he wa out of the lane prior to the throw is irrelevant.

Thanks. That's how I see it. I don't think an interference call would have been egregious, but I think this was the proper call.

I don't see how in the world the runner could be at fault for obstruction.

Pedantic point. Fielders obstruct. Runners (or batters) interfere. The difference between the 2 are obstruction is a delayed dead ball. After the infraction, play continues until dead and then the runners (or batter) are then allowed to take the result of the play or the base award set in the rule book. Interference is an automatic dead ball, and play stop and penalties applied.

Now, one could retort "What about catcher's interference?" That's just a weird nomenclature. It's called interference, but it's treated like obstruction. In the case of catcher's interference, if the batter ends up with a hit, he gets that. If he swings and misses or pops up up, he gets first base. It's not an automatic dead ball.

Until they update the rule to say you must make all reasonable efforts (even if it slows you down ) to get into the baseline asap, it will be considered interference if the balls hits the runner at any point, then I say this is not interference. And that rule clarification should only be for balls being thrown from inside the pitchers mound area

I'm an umpire. This is a TOUGH call. The throw should have gone to the inside of the bag. Meyers should have gone to the outside of the bag.

In youth/HS rule sets this is clear-cut running lane interference because Meyers is not in the running lane at all as he goes down the line. The Official Rules have language that puts a greater "burden of proof" on the defense, so it's a 50/50 call to me; Martinez got the wrong side of the coin flip.

This article from NFHS is a good overview.

This is probably too late for the discussion, but while I agree that the catcher made a bad throw, and it does seem like by the book it's not interference by the runner, focusing on what's happening at :24 misses the point a bit as far as the difficulty for the catcher.

If you look instead at :23 where Meyers is still clearly on the grass, that's what the catcher is sizing up as he quickly decides where to aim and starts his throwing motion. He still absolutely made a poor throw, but I don't think this was an *easy* throw to make either given what he was looking at.