Great example of INT

[thunderheads]

Mark Carlson on the call .....this is a nice video example of this ....:p
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12549103

[denimvest]

Mark Carlson on the call .....this is a nice video example of this ....:p
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12549103
Great call. There wasn't much to argue on this one. I think Gaston really just wanted have another run at Carlson for calling Brett Gardner safe on a close tag play at the plate in the 5th.

I like how authoritatively Kellogg takes over and tells him to hit the showers. http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/Emoticons/388e61ba.gif

Gardner play:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/Gardner.png

[bluesails]

How many times do we as plate umps do our job and trail the BR up to the 45' lane when appropiate, and don't have a call. Good job here, every once in while it pays off.
Foolish argument by Gaston.....could the INT. be any more clear ?

[bigbird69]

I readily admit that I am a Yankee fan through and through, but my assigner would have my guts for garters if I missed this one...

Not even remotely close.. I have seen some close ones where the runner gets hit on the final stride that lands on the base (have to go back into fair territory for the base afterall), but this is clearly NOT one of them.

This replay could very easily be the example to use when teaching.

[grayhawk]

I wish there was video of it, but I searched MLB and found nothing. During the Angels/A's game a couple of nights ago, Brandon Wood laid down a sac bunt with R1. Very nice bunt up the 1B line and he's running in fair territory the entire way down the line. F2 fields the ball and throws just to the left of Wood with the ball tailing away and can't be fielded by F3. No interference was called, though I believe the reason for the "error" was because Wood was running completely in fair territory.

[abevillarreal]

I wish there was video of it, but I searched MLB and found nothing. During the Angels/A's game a couple of nights ago, Brandon Wood laid down a sac bunt with R1. Very nice bunt up the 1B line and he's running in fair territory the entire way down the line. F2 fields the ball and throws just to the left of Wood with the ball tailing away and can't be fielded by F3. No interference was called, though I believe the reason for the "error" was because Wood was running completely in fair territory.

I saw that too, must have been Tuesday because when I saw this thread yesterday I was thinking it was going to be about that play. not sure how to find the video but it would be a good one to post. Abe

[denimvest]

I wish there was video of it, but I searched MLB and found nothing. During the Angels/A's game a couple of nights ago, Brandon Wood laid down a sac bunt with R1. Very nice bunt up the 1B line and he's running in fair territory the entire way down the line. F2 fields the ball and throws just to the left of Wood with the ball tailing away and can't be fielded by F3. No interference was called, though I believe the reason for the "error" was because Wood was running completely in fair territory.
I couldn't find a highlight video of it, either, but I watched the inning on the video archive and below are a few screen caps.

IMO, this was a borderline situation and not nearly as clear-cut as the Yanks-Jays one. If Powell (F2) had thrown the ball directly into Wood's (BR) back, he might have gotten the call. But, I think the big difference is how much farther toward the mound Powell was when he fielded the ball, giving him a clearer angle to throw to 1B. Powell got the error, but it really should have been given to Mark Ellis (F4) who was covering the bag. Ellis ran into the bag too hard and then slipped as he tried to come back to field the throw (look where his feet are in the last pic). The throw was on the money and Ellis botched it because of this.

Remember the rule says the runner is out for running outside the three-foot lane only if, "in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." Since the throw could have been handled and was muffed because of Ellis overrunning it and falling down, I would imagine Kerwin Danley believed Wood's position didn't affect the play. Didn't look like either Powell or Geren tried to argue the non-call.

Some pics:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/1-1.png

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/2-1.png

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/3-1.png

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/4-1.png

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/aelogan/5.png

[Richard_Siegel]

Part of the rule in MLB requires the thrown to 1B to have a "reasonable chance of retiring the runner." The last frame shows F3 laid out trying to catch the ball. In MLB if the throw doesn't hit the runner it is unlikely they will call the INT. MLB umpires will take the position that a MLB player should be able to throw the ball to F3 without making him come off the base. If the throw happens to hit the runner then they will get him. However, if the throw is off line they will say the runner was not responsible for the bad throw.

[grayhawk]

F2 is certainly closer to the mound than I remember. Given the angle of the play, it's very reasonable to expect MLB players to make that play.

Interesting how Danley stayed at home rather than running up the line as the umpire in the OP did. Given where the ball is being fielded, however, he would only be able to take a couple of steps up the line anyway without potentially getting in the way.

[bigbird69]

I was always taught by my coaches to throw to the bag and if it hits the runner, let the umpires sort it out... when else can you get a free shot at a runner :-)

I am currently doing HS softball and the emphasis this years is on this play, which would have been ruled an out.

MLB, you normally have to see the ball hit the runner to get the call.

[blue_young]

R2 on 3rd, One out.

PU sees INT on BR like Carlson did...but F3 catches ball and R2 scores from third.

Does run count,INT ignored, and the play simply stands as a putout? Or does PU announce INT, call the play dead, and return R2 to 3rd eventhough F3 caught the ball on 1B?

I know this goes under rules area, but this has been eating at me while reading this thread

[Richard_Siegel]

R2 on 3rd, One out.

PU sees INT on BR like Carlson did...but F3 catches ball and R2 scores from third.

Does run count, INT ignored, and the play simply stands as a putout? Or does PU announce INT, call the play dead, and return R2 to 3rd even though F3 caught the ball on 1B?

I know this goes under rules area, but this has been eating at me while reading this thread

You're treating runner's interference like type-B obstruction. Runner's interference is always an immediate DB. We don't wait to see the results of the play when a runner interferes. First of all it is unlikely that INT would be called on a BR if F3 catches the ball. If F3 caught the ball wouldn't that mean he was NOT interfered with? Nevertheless, given your question, once INT is called on a BR all runners must return to their base at the TOP. So R3 goes back. Once INT is called on a runner it is never disregarded, like a balk might be.

[bobjenkins]

Nevertheless, given your question, once INT is called on a BR all runners must return to their base at the TOP.

Unless there's been an intervening play, in which case runners return TOT.

[bluesails]

As Richard pointed out, on BR running lane violation,(INT.) the throw has to have a chance to retire the runner, and it has to be online, not errant. In the example the throw has pulled F3 off the bag. Most likely why the INT. wasn't called.

[Richard_Siegel]

As Richard pointed out, on BR running lane violation,(INT.) the throw has to have a chance to retire the runner, and it has to be online, not errant. In the example the throw has pulled F3 off the bag. Most likely why the INT. wasn't called.

Yes. Exactly. Even though it is entirely possible that the position of the runner influenced the catcher to make the bad throw, in the pros, players are still expected to make a good throw even though the runner is in the way. That's why the umpires will usually require the throw to hit the runner, and also to be a quality throw that could retire the runner, before they would call the INT.

[denimvest]

As Richard pointed out, on BR running lane violation,(INT.) the throw has to have a chance to retire the runner, and it has to be online, not errant. In the example the throw has pulled F3 off the bag. Most likely why the INT. wasn't called.
Correct on the rules, but to be precise the throw was online and in-time in this case. F4 simply missed it as he slipped on the bag after overrunning it and trying to come back. An F3 probably would have had it for a routine out.

[Richard_Siegel]

Correct on the rules, but to be precise the throw was online and in-time in this case. F4 simply missed it as he slipped on the bag after overrunning it and trying to come back. An F3 probably would have had it for a routine out.

If that is so then the umpires probably felt that F4 just screwed up catching a good throw. They were not going to reward him for that by calling INT either. Surely the BR running in out of the lane had nothing to do with causing F4 to missed it because he slipped on the bag after overrunning it and trying to come back.

It goes to the rationale that the throw has to have a chance to retire the runner. If the person who is supposed to catch the throw fails to get into proper position do so because of a mistake he made on his own, then the throw did NOT have a chance to retire the runner. Maybe we should say the the PLAY has to have a chance to retire the runner, instead of "throw." We can't penalize the BR for F4's mistake.

[dash_riprock]

Except in FED where INT would be the call. Only God knows why.

[bluesails]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. I can't rule on what was or was likely to have happened.
Yes, FED is messed up and cause confusion, as I've lamented in the past, they should stick with saftey and playing time issues.......leave the rules of the game as they are.

[denimvest]

If that is so then the umpires probably felt that F4 just screwed up catching a good throw. They were not going to reward him for that by calling INT either. Surely the BR running in out of the lane had nothing to do with causing F4 to missed it because he slipped on the bag after overrunning it and trying to come back.

It goes to the rationale that the throw has to have a chance to retire the runner. If the person who is supposed to catch the throw fails to get into proper position do so because of a mistake he made on his own, then the throw did NOT have a chance to retire the runner. Maybe we should say the the PLAY has to have a chance to retire the runner, instead of "throw." We can't penalize the BR for F4's mistake.
Exactly. As I said above, "Since the throw could have been handled and was muffed because of Ellis overrunning it and falling down, I would imagine Kerwin Danley believed Wood's position didn't affect the play." If anyone has an MLB.TV subscription, watch the video – it's the bottom of the seventh. It's pretty clear to see that Powell had a good angle to throw, the throw was where it needed to be (not textbook chest-high, but eminently catchable for a HS player, let alone a major-leaguer), and Ellis just botches the whole thing. No interference, no bad throw, just a really bad job of covering first by F4.