A Dumb Rule Almost Ruined the World Series
The Nationals won last night thanks to a great outing from Stephen Strasburg and a big home run from Anthony Rendon in the seventh inning. But just before Rendon’s homer, this play happened, per our Play Log:
Trea Turner grounded out to pitcher.
That description is a little lacking. How about this:
Turner was called out for interference. Dave Martinez got mad at the umpires. Trea Turner got mad that Joe Torre wasn’t doing anything. There was a delay, and at its end, Turner was still out. Rendon hit a homer that reminded everyone of Rasheed Wallace and the Nationals forced a Game 7, but the play and the rule deserve some scrutiny.
We should first address the rule we are talking about. Turner’s offense was not your standard interference call under Rule 6, as that type of interference requires intent like on this rather famous play:
As Joe Torre detailed in a postgame interview, Turner was ruled out under 5.09(a)12 of the Official Baseball Rules, which states that a batter is out if:
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;
You Aren't a FanGraphs MemberIt looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:✓Ad-free browsing✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles✓Historical & platoon projections✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps✓One-click data exports✓Customizable player-page dashboards✓Dark & Classic site modes✓Weekly Members-only mailbag✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review✓Optional homepage photo removal✓Gift articles to non-members
Let’s take a closer look at the play:
Clearly, Turner is not where he’s supposed to be the entire way up the line. As for whether he interfered with the throw, that’s pretty clear, too:
For more on the rule, check out this video where umpire Ted Barrett lays it out:
I think the video does a good job explaining the rule, but a couple things jumped out at me. The first is the intent of the rule. Barrett explains that 5.09(a)12 is designed to give the catcher just out in front of home plate a clear lane in which to throw. No matter how accurate the application of the rule might have been with regard to Turner last night, the rule wasn’t made for situations where the ball is 20 feet from the plate and the fielder has a clear lane to throw out the runner. The rule also required Turner to not run in a straight line to first base, which is bizarre. A right-handed hitter’s natural, most direct path is apparently against the rules and requires significant deviation. Turner isn’t the only runner to take this path to first. Here’s another play from last night.
At best, Turner’s interference was a side-effect of the intended rule. There’s also an “at worst,” though. Barrett also explains that the runner is allowed to go into the field of play in order to touch first base. This is where things get murky. There’s a comment on the rule that provides an explanation of sorts:
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.
Precisely what that means is open to interpretation. Does it mean that if a batter has been out of the lane, like Turner, but then gets close to the base, he’s in the clear? Or, does the player have to be in the correct lane the entire time and can only deviate at the end if he wants protection from the exception. Let’s take a look at a few examples. Back in 2015, Raul Mondesi laid down a bunt. This is what happened:
It’s important to note that for a play to be interference, the fielder has to make a throw and the throw needs to be interfered with. If the fielder makes a really bad throw and it sails over everyone’s head or goes really wide, there is no interference. A few years ago, Joe Girardi argued a call when a Dellin Betances throw went way over the runner and he was told interference would have been called if the throw had hit the runner. It’s worth noting that this application of the rule could also go against the stated intent of providing a clear throwing lane. In the Mondesi play above, the throw goes right at the runner; Matt Shoemaker said after the game that he hit Mondesi with the throw. Here’s another angle:
Mondesi was called safe and Angels manager Mike Scoscia protested the call. He explained he wasn’t protesting because of the umpire’s judgment, but because of the interpretation of the rule:
“It’s very clear,” Scioscia said. “Phil Cuzzi had Mondesi running inside the line in jeopardy the whole way, and stated that it was OK because he was stepping back towards the bag, which is wrong. You’re only OK if you start in the lane and step back in…You’re in jeopardy the whole way if you run inside, whether you get to the bag or not. So the question wasn’t if the throw impeded him, or if he impeded the throw. The question wasn’t if he was running inside. It’s, what I believe, is his misinterpretation of the rule, given the guidelines that he gave me.
Scoscia’s argument was that the umpire basically admitted that Mondesi interfered and was running inside the baseline the whole way but because he was lunging for the bag at the end, the umpire decided that he was allowed to be where he was. Scoscia’s protest was denied by Joe Torre without a public explanation.
Speaking of Torre, it is possible that last night brought to mind for him this play from 1998 ALCS:
You can watch the full video including Joe Torre coming out of the dugout to argue the call. Bob Costas indicated Travis Fryman was allowed to to be where he was. After the game, the umpires explained why the call of no interference was correct. From Murray Chass’ New York Times piece the day after:
The Yankees blamed Hendry for not calling Fryman out for interference, but Jim Evans, the crew chief, explained that no matter what Fryman’s path to first was, the ball hit him as he stepped on or was about to step on the base and he was entitled to be in fair territory when he reached the base because the base was in fair territory.
In 1998, Fryman was allowed to do exactly what Turner did. In 2016, Raul Mondesi was allowed to do what Turner did, and when a protest was filed because the Angels didn’t believe Mondesi was supposed to do what Turner did, the protest was denied. We could point to the glove-touching last night, but that’s not a requirement under the rule. We don’t know exactly why the 2016 protest was denied, but there was no clarification of the rule at the time. When Turner “interfered,” he was in a space he was allowed to be in. It’s not clear whether his previous infraction of running inside the line (even on a straight line from the plate where his body was not blocking a clean throw) precluded him from gaining the protection in the final three feet. If last night’s call is correct, are the calls on Fryman and Mondesi invalid absent some other rule change or clarification? The inconsistent application of unclear rules should never be the focal point of any game, let alone Game 6 of the World Series. Rendon saved the Nats and the sport last night, but that won’t always be the case.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I don’t know if the rule is dumb or the call was dumb, but the whole thing made no sense. Essentially the Astros were rewarded for making a lousy defensive play. If Gurriel hadn’t had to reach for the throw, it wouldn’t have been in time and Turner would have been safe. And if Gurriel hadn’t dropped his glove, there would have been no interference and again Turner would have been safe. But because the throw was off and Gurriel dropped his glove, Turner was called out.
Not only that, but even if the throw was on line and in time, the runner from first ends up at second. The bad throw earns the Astros the bonus of moving the runner back to first base!
This is Chase Utley sliding “into” second in the 2015 NLCS , breaking the shortstop’s leg, and being awarded the base despite never touching it level of stupid.
Utley didn’t slide into the base, he slid into Ruben Tejada. He sailed clear over the base because he started his slide a couple feet in front of it. It was a Burfict Crime.
It would have been stupid to call Utley out on that play, because the shortstop never touched the bag either.
That’s called the “neighborhood play.” Before the Utley rule, infielders were allowed to do that in order to avoid to better avoid injuries by sliding runners. It served the same purpose as the Utley rule, which has now replaced it.
How do you figure that? If the throw was on line and in time, he would’ve caught the ball for the out. The only reason his glove came off was due to the runner hitting it. Even with the throw as it was, if the runner had been in foul territory where he was supposed to be, the ball would’ve been caught, and it would’ve been an infield hit at best.
The glove had nothing to do with it. It’s interference simply because the fielder had to touch the runner in order to make an attempt to catch the ball.
Correct ruling! Incredibly stupid rule!
So all the other times they ruled the opposite way on this, they were wrong?
Rule precedent is set by prior interpretations and rulings on said judgement call. MLB ser a precedent prior and then deviated from it, therefore it’s wrong imo.
Well, yes and no. I agree a precedent was set, but once it is ruled a certain way and they go to review at that point it has to be the letter of the law, no?
If they had never ruled a certain way in the first place we wouldn’t have to worry about it, but since they made a rule and it was challenged they cannot really change it then, right? That to me is the thing. Regardless of precedent, once a ruling is made and challenged they cannot really change the call to something that doesn’t follow the actual rules.
This call has been made in favor of the runner and the fielder in the past, which is what you would expect from a judgment call
That’s exactly why the rule needs to be clarified so that it no longer is a judgement call.
You can just go back to last year’s World Series for a much more egregious case of this without it being called. In Game 4, Bellinger was trying to avoid a 3-2-3 double play and actually veered out into fair territory (since he’s a lefty, he started in the correct lane and changed path to get in the way). He was much further out than Turner was as well.
Here’s a still frame:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dqj7ULMVsAEyL3p?format=jpg&name=medium
These things are a complete coin flip as to how they’ll be called. Very frustrating to watch.
Robo umps and safety bags now!
They’re gonna call it the Turner bag
How about the T(r)ea Bag?
apparently you haven’t been following. They are using them in az fall league and they have been an absolute disaster. Not gonna happen, nor should they be implemented.
It has been a disaster in the AZ Fall League? How is that possible? It is literally the simplest thing in the world. If you are running through first base, step on the bag on the right and stay in foul territory.
Said it in the other comment section, but Turner beating the ball to the base meant he had the right to the base. This was how the MLB has called that play in the past – as was pointed out in this article.
Also, the rule was intended to give catchers a throwing lane – as was also pointed out by an umpire in this article.
No matter how you interpret the rule, based on the above points it’s quite obvious this was an improper interpretation by the umpire based on the intent of the rule.
That Scalia style original intent argument is not the winner for me. The umpire may know some history, but all he can do is apply the rule as it’s written. It’s a poorly written rule if it was intended to only apply to catchers’ throws. But the rule makes no distinction between positions and on its face applies to any plays. You can’t have umps NOT apply the rule as it’s written based on their idea of the historical intent of the rule.
So not only do umpires need to know the rules inside and out, but they need to apply them based on they’ve been applied for over 100 years?
That’s quite the ask.
Umps go out on the field equipped with more than the rule book. This umpiring crew has more than a century of experience among them.
They undergo continuing training as they rise up the ranks. They certainly have a good sense of how these rules have been applied in the last few decades, esp. as some of the calls noted in the article generated controversy at the time.
Sure, but an umpire has mere seconds to make that call. In that time, they have to remember the rule as it is written in the rule book, not “how was this call made in October of 2018?”
The rules should certainly reflect those precedents, but you can’t fault an umpire for calling the rule as it was written.
It’s not about having recall of a specific game from 1 or 2 or 10 seasons ago. It’s about knowing how the rule has generally been applied in the past, and knowing its purpose/intent (which had guided its application).
The examples above are of similar situations where no call of interference was made. I’m not aware of a list of similar cases where interference was called (tho if someone has one, I’d be happy to see it). Which is to say, the general tendency here seems pretty clear – this rule hasn’t generally been enforced this way in the past.
It’s not just the umps who know that. The players know it too, and they base their behavior on it. So to suddenly apply the rule differently – even if it’s arguably more in accord with the letter of the rule book – doesn’t seem like a great way to proceed.
But yes, he had to make a snap judgment about a bad rule on a big stage, where whichever way he ruled was going to piss off one side or the other. Fortunately it didn’t really matter, and – also fortunately – maybe this episode leads to some clarification/modification of the rule in the future.
Even if they initially get it wrong, we now have Instant Reply to allow them to correct it.
The intent of the rule doesn’t matter if the letter of the rule is still violated. That’s why the infield fly rule in the 2012 Wild Card Game was correctly called.
However, as it’s written, it can be interpreted either way. Is it required that the runner be in foul territory the entire second half of the way before the last step or not? Now if they were to clarify it to where the runner’s lane doesn’t matter until throw is completed, while the runner is still allowed the last step in fair territory to reach the bag if made while the throw is being received, then yes Turner would be safe.
It’s really not that open for interpretation. You can’t exit something you were never in.
Saying a rule is dumb is pretty easy to do. Making a less dumb rule is a whole lot harder. I see a ton of people saying it is dumb but no one offering a less dumb one.
The rule is fine, because it allows for the umpire to make a judgement. You can never possibly legislate every single case that might ever come up. So you legislate as best you can to capture the spirit/intent of the rule, and trust the refs to use their best judgement.
That judgement, as exercised last night by men well paid to make correct judgements, was horrendous. Not only does it seem t be wrong on its face, but it was not in keeping with the spirit of the rule (blocking the catcher’s throw) or with several instances of established precedent.
I think the judgment is perfect. The rule is the runner has to run in the runner’s lane. It’s his “safe haven” (which, by the way, is the actual intent of the rule IMO). He didn’t, he was out.
And I mean, you can’t write a rule and just have everyone understand to not call it sometimes.
I disagree. The intent of the rule is here “… and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base…”.
It’s not about a runner’s safe haven. It’s about the runner not using his body as a screen to interfere with a fair attempt by the fielders at putting him out. There is no chalk line between the other bases. There is no secondary line between 3rd base and home. The line next to 1st base is about giving the catcher a throwing lane. That was simply not applicable on last nights play, so to call interference because the pitcher’s throw was off line was absurd.
The legalism about the lane is nonsense CYA garbage, obscuring the umpire’s extremely poor judgement.
Yeah, the intent is to prevent the runner from interfering with the thrown ball or the fielder catching the ball. So they made it such that if that happens, the runner is out. But they made an exception to that rule. That he is allowed to interfere if he runs in the running lane.
If the rule is supposed to do what you say it is supposed to do, it should absolutely not be written as it is. If last night’s play is not supposed to be interference, the rule needs to be changed. Good luck finding a less dumb rule.
The rule doesn’t say that the catcher has to make the throw. If you want to clarify the rule to be for catchers only, that’s fine, but as it’s written, not enforcing it just because it doesn’t follow the intended situation is what would be absurd.
In this case, the runner clearly did interfere with the fielder taking the throw. The only issue is as to whether the exception allowed for the last step towards the base should be applied.
https://twitter.com/jtaillon19/status/1189374926043648005?s=21
NO! We want as few judgement calls in the rules as possible! The rule already contains one judgment (whether or not the runner interfered with the throw), so we certainly don’t want to add another to it. The last thing baseball needs is endless arguments over the rules like the definition of a catch in football or traveling in basketball.
The idea behind the rule is fine. You just need to legislate it as best you can to cover as many situations as is reasonable in order to trust the refs to capture the letter of the rule instead of their individual judgments.
There are several different possible solutions. I’m sure they would all have unintended consequences but they would be more consistent:
1) Move the inner chalk line slightly into fair territory so that the runner’s natural lane is in the accepted area. Remove the grass in that lane so it is obvious. Catchers would adjust. New rule could be “if you run on the grass at any point, the batter is out if he interferes with the ball being caught or fielded.”
2) Extend the bag into foul territory so that a runner could run through the bag being in foul territory the whole time.
3) Indicate that this rule of interference can only be applied when the ball is fielded by the catcher (or anyone between home plate and the pitcher’s mound). This wouldn’t have changed the problem last night, for what it’s worth. It also would require batters to sometimes avoid fair territory and sometimes not, which I don’t think they would do.
4) Clarify that a batter can be anywhere in fair territory within one stride (or 3 feet or where the grass ends or whatever) of the base and that interference cannot be called in that situation.
Amid this controversy, I’d just like to salute baseball for having far fewer dumb rules than every other sport.
Dropped third strike says hi
I see your dropped third strike and raise ineligible receiver downfield
What is a catch, anyway?
Interestingly, it’s something those ineligible receivers never even attempt to do …
As always, darts wins
The rule is dumb.
A reasonable rule might be that if the throw hits the runner while outside of the lane, and before he reaches the base, the runner is out. That would place the runner in a “run at your own risk” situation, but it’s a lot better than the ridiculous application of a vague and ambiguous rule we witnessed last night. A rule that requires a runner to deviate from his direct line to the base is ridiculous.
The best defence of the rule was that it was wrongly applied last night, and that no matter what the runner’s path to first, he cannot be out on interference during his last stride towards the bag absent some kind of intent. But a rule that can be misapplied so easily and without any recourse doesn’t really deserve this kind of defense: a good rule is one that is understood by those who have to apply it, so it can be done fairly and consistently.
While analyzing the controversial play at first base last night, John Smoltz said something that sounded particularly absurd to me.
Smoltz said that on plays like the one in question, where the runner is running inside the line, pitchers and catchers are taught to throw at or near the runner, in the hope that they’ll get the kind of call the fielding team got last night.
Does this make any sense at all?! Aren’t pitchers and catchers taught to throw the ball to the 2nd base side of 1st base, so the first baseman can actually catch it?
As I responded in the other article thread: The lesson is throw it inside the line if you can, hit the runner if you can’t.
My HS coach told us this one in pitcher drills: On squeeze plays, throw it right at the hitter’s face. Because it’s very difficult to bunt a ball fair that is traveling towards your face, and a hit batter sends the runner back to 3rd. Genius, in sort of a sociopathic way.
But in a case like last night’s, Peacock had a great angle to throw inside the line. I just don’t see how the comment was relevant last night.
And in what scenario can’t an infielder do that? Even if the ball is on the first base line, the first baseman can still give you a target a few feet off the bag. I don’t see why you would ever try to hit a moving target and hope for a sympathetic umpire’s call rather than trying to throw a strike to the first baseman.
Examples: 1. Like last night when the runner is destined to beat the throw. or 2. When your 1B is out of position. Agreed that none of this is relevant because the pitcher had plenty of room to make that (bad) throw that took Gurriel into the runner sideways.
If the infielder is closer to home plate or the line and has a bad angle. Or if the 1B is right handed and is holding his glove such that the runner is in the way. Or if the 1B is just standing in the wrong place and hasn’t given the fieder a good target.
The point isn’t to throw at the runner. The point is to throw at the runner rather than not throw at all, or airmail it hoping the 1B can make a miraculous catch
OK, I get the first one, but how are you supposed to know the squeeze play is on before you pitch the ball (aside from the rare times you successfully steal the sign)? Surely you wouldn’t throw at the hitter every pitch when there’s a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs and at least 1 base open.
I think there’s a straightforward way to harmonize the text of the rule with the prevailing view that the call was bad.
The key phrase in the rule is “in so doing”, which is a causation requirement: the runner is out if he runs “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”. The question is not simply whether the fielder was interfered with, but whether the cause of that interference was the runner being to the left of the foul line. Craig is correct that the the fielder was interfered with, but the cause of that interference seems to be that Turner arrived at the bag at essentially the same time the ball arrived, and the bag is in fair territory and is generally a place that Turner is entitled to be. In this situation, Turner could not have caused the interference.
That’s why I think the debate about “exit” from the running lane is beside the point. If Turner had been properly running on the foul line and had properly “exited” for the purpose of touching the bag, then the interference still would have occurred. Because the interference would have occurred regardless whether Turner was on the foul line or was slightly to the left of it, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the cause of the interference was Turner’s noncompliance with the running lane rule.
In short, I think the rule requires that the runner’s noncompliance cause the interference, and here the cause of the interference was that there was a bang-bang play where the ball and the runner are both in the same place at the same time and are both permitted to be there.
This view of the rule means this is a judgment call and is not reviewable. But I think it explains what’s happening. Almost built into the rule is a presumption that if the runner is arriving at the bag, then it’s very unlikely that the cause of any interference was the runner’s noncompliance, and instead the cause of the interference was just that the runner and the ball arrived at the same time.
This view of the rule still incentivizes runners to stay in the proper lane — if they do so, and if they properly exit the lane to touch the bag, then they’re basically off the hook no matter what interference occurs. But if the runner is to the left of the foul line and is “in jeopardy” to use Scoscia’s phrase, then the runner is at the mercy of the umpire’s judgment and is taking that risk.
from game article- this is from Eno Sarris.
https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1189407084258873346
Yes, all those hitters that hit from the very front of the batter’s box. Or, a more accurate version:
Or this:
https://imgur.com/sGepgHc
There should be a lane the RH hitting runner can take that is straight, and if he’s in the lane and not swinging around his arms, he’s safe…..you should NOT reward the D for a bad throw. You should not punish a runner for being efficient in his route.
the Sarris tweet shows how ridiculous the path they say the batter should take…
This needs to be fixed. Very similar to the Posey and Utley rules.
I don’t expect umps or refs to get everything right. They’re human, they’re going to mess up.
But it would be nice if the powers that be would have the integrity to admit their errors. Instead of this doubling down that we get from Joe Torre and the Union.
BTW, it bears mentioning that the ump who made the call last night is the same one who made the infamous infield fly call in the 2012 Wild Card game between the Braves and the Cardinals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ujbLknUc
How about moving 1st and 3rd base to just outside the foul line, in foul territory? That frees up the throwing lanes for the catcher, while allowing consistent enforcement of the running lanes without the issue of the batter-runner having to cross back into fair territory for one stride so he can touch the bag.
Good idea
Hmm, that’s an interesting idea. The only issue is that it makes the effective safe distance between 1st and 2nd base, and 2nd and 3rd base, slightly longer than it is between Home and 1st, and 3rd and Home.
It’s really unclear to me how/why people are defending the rule and ruling… Craig does an excellent job in laying out the intent behind the rule and precedent that has been set for this type of call, and it really seems like there is no case to be made that the call last night was correct. Sure, the rule is sloppily written and is quite unclear, but that doesn’t seem like a good reason for the umps to go against all established precedent to make a call that seemed silly even in isolation, free of precedent or context. Bad rule, bad call… Hopefully this is the impetus for the rule to get cleaned up in the offseason, but in the meantime, everyone just thank the baseball gods that it didn’t affect the ultimate outcome of the game in any obvious way.
(1) Some are Astros fans or fans of other NL East teams, wanting to see the Nats lose
(2) Some are contrarians, looking to disagree with the consensus view (which is that the ruling was unfair to the Nationals)
(3) Some may be incorrectly reading the rule, missing the judgment aspect of it
(4) Some are just sticklers for the “letter of the law”, regardless of whether those applying it are doing so consistently, or whether the law and its application is fair or just in the particular situation
After 150 years we still don’t know what a strike is from one pitch to the next. Why should we expect to know the correct way to run at a base?
MLB pitchers says : https://twitter.com/jtaillon19/status/1189374926043648005?s=21
I think it’s all much simpler than everyone has suggested, and Joe Torry hinted at this in his presser afterward (in my mind at least):
1. The umpire saw the first baseman’s glove fly off when contacting Turner. Nine times of of 10, this means the runner slammed into the baseman and it’s interference. Besides, Turner seemed a little inside the foul line.
2. Instead of speaking with any of the 500 officials on the field, the umpire decided unilaterally to call interference, because making snap, junk calls is what’s hot right now.
3. When the ump views the replay, he sees that it’s not interference, but he is not willing to admit error, and all umpires in unison shudder with the thought of changing one’s mind *in front of people*. After all, that would constitute a *review* and those aren’t allowed, even when you know you’re wrong. It’s America dammit! Plus, umpires know we are all impressed with the hunky machismo they exude and they don’t want to ruin that for everyone by admitting they are fallible.
4. The umpire union fills out their form letter explaining that “every call we’ve ever made, even contradictory ones, are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.” All caps is necessary. Remember, hunky machismo.
I wish, just once, the MLBUA would develop the testicular fortitude to actually speak publicly about calls. Instead, they hide behind Joe Torre, who they equally despise; they treat their Twitter like a geriatric arguing politics on Facebook, and break out white wristbands any time a player speaks ill about them… but they aren’t afraid to trash players publicly (i.e. Machado).
I wish the MLB would start demanding some accountability from these cowards.
We all know they won’t.
“hunky machismo” would make a great band name.
The rule, as applied, is actually worse than this is shown.
If Turner ran the entire way in the runners lane, and still made contact with Gurriel, he’d be safe. The rule doesn’t care about the interference, but rather the path taken prior to the interference.
Well, that’s the basic issue. Does the previous path matter before that last step or not? As it’s written, the rule can be interpreted either way.
What I was always told that the runner makes their own path. As long as you stay within your path after a step or two from the plate, you’re probably good. That’s resulted in some crazy paths that get in the way of the throw, but I’ve seen it go against my team many times, with the runner way outside of a “normal” running path. I haven’t heard anyone bring this up, but I thought that was the rule? Turner made his path and stayed on it, seems open and shut
If you make contact with the fielder or ball and are not in the runners lane. You are out. If you are in the runners lane and make contact, you are protected from interference. Quite simple actually. Umpires made the correct call. Most baserunners ignore the lane and take the most direct path the bag, but do so with the risk of being called for interference if contact is made. 99% of the time you can get away with it, not in this case though.
“If you drink and drive, we will arrest you.”
“If you drink and drive, but do so in the carpool lane, you’ll be fine.”
The running lane argument aside, when the rule cares more about what happened before the interference than it does about the interference itself, that’s a problem.
Bingo. This is the crux of the matter. People are upset about the ruling because it doesn’t capture the spirit of the rule, and seemed unfair given the circumstances.
The fielder is also granted the right of way when in the process of fielding the ball even if it’s in the runner’s lane. If a second baseman is camped under a pop-up directly between 1st and 2nd base, you can’t just mow him down as you run by.
If the Posey rule comes into play in the late innings tonight, the MLB will self combust
The rule doesn’t say intent, but bringing Gomes back to first sure suggests the Nats are being punished for bad behavior. But it’s what everyone does and it’s only an issue if the play is right there.
To me Turner would have been out, a successful sacrifice, so an out and Gomes in second makes sense. Other outcomes seem unfair to one side or the other.
For those that think the umpire made the correct call, on the clip where Bregman was running down the line (in fair territory) and let’s say he had hit it to 3B and the throw sailed a bit so it ended up where the glove and ball collided with Bregman at the bag, causing contact with glove, he should be called out? It is essentially the same fact set but that would never be called, ever.
So people in favor of this call are saying any ball thrown by any infielder that sails into the runner at the bag causing collision with runner and/or glove, unless the runner was running the whole route inside the line (in no way relevant to any throwing lane), they should be called out.
That is what they seem to be arguing and it is ludicrous.
Lost in this discussion is the fact that Turner actually didn’t interfere with Gurriel. Rather, Gurriel shoved his gloved hand into Turner who had already run past him on the field. In order for this rule to be invoked on this play, the umpires must believe that when a fielder deliberately comes in contact with a runner, the runner is at fault.
It’s umpire calls like this one that cause casual fans to suspect that the game is rigged.
This isn’t that hard. The Barrett video clearly highlights that this rule is to give the CATCHER a throwing lane. No the rule doesn’t explicitly say that but clearly that’s how umps understand the rule.
If this rule really applied to all ground balls we’d have tons of interference calls every time there was a bad throw to the inside of the bag
The umps got this wrong and instead of conferring with the other umps and making a considered decision, the home plate ump just screwed up
Is anyone else annoyed that the first baseman had the wrong foot on the bag? By having his left foot on the bag (with the glove on his left hand) he shortens his stretching distance. If he had put his other foot on the bag he could have caught that ball before it reached the runner.
AJ Hinch ?
Terrible call. You have to make any call in baseball…EVERY CALL, based on the INTENT of the rule. Not strictly based on the literal wording of it. Terrible call. Torre is an idiot…what we’ve already known for long time. Kind of came across as early stages of being senile.
The problem is that the call is not reviewable. The umpires then agreed to have it reviewed on a phony pretext, and New York could not find a way to reverse it on that pretext or they would have.
They should make the runner run IN THE BOX. If they are on the FIELD side of the box they are susceptible to “interference” call. And then put a 2nd “bag” on the FOUL side of 1B and THAT is the base the runner tries to get to. This base would ONLY be used for the hitter trying to get to 1B. All subsequent play would be at the “regular” base. It would also prevent some collisions at 1B. Foul territory belongs to the runner. If the ball goes there and hits him the ball is “live.” But if he’s in fair territory he, at the umpires discretion, can be called for interference if he affects the throw/catch.
Regardless if the throw was “off-line” or whatever, to me he was called out for interference. He looked to be running INSIDE the 1B line where he, by rule, should not have been.
The rule is still necessary for its intended purpose. It also needs to be enforced when the intended purpose does not occur in order to keep the rule standardized. (The small amount of “judgment calls” needed within baseball’s rules is one of the reasons I prefer the sport over others like football or basketball).
However, I agree that it would be nice if the rule was better clarified.
Yeah, let’s get rid of the that dumb infield fly rule, too. Nobody knows what it says anyway. Oh, and let’s get rid of that really dumb can’t-spike-an-inflielder-interference rule, we need a lot more blood and guts spilled in baseball to make it more appealing to the 2020 Trumper fans. And one more thing, let’s get rid of that really, really, super-dumb three-strikes-you’re-out rule. Home runs and doubles are so much more fun to watch than those dumb strikeouts and grounds outs!!!! And finally, let’s get rid of those super-duper dumb umpires. Fangraphs “writers” know so much more about the rules and baseball, let them tweet about each play and decide what’s dumb and what’s cool!!!!!!!!