ORAggieFan said:

---

The problem here is where the "interference" came into play and his base path location doesn't matter. Him being inside did not affect the throw (like if the catcher fielded a bunt). Instead, his last half step was the issue and that was his left foot hitting the middle of the bag. If a runner can't lunge to the bag, then how the hell are they supposed to touch it? Should we put a double bag like softball? Had he been to the right of the foul line it wouldn't have changed him needing to make his last step in line with the base.

As was mentioned, only Astros fans are defending the atrocious call. It's an umpire known for horrible calls making another.

---

Most people, even people that consider themselves baseball people, dont seem to actually know the rules. Anybody that watches that infield fly play and thinks they got it wrong should not be interjecting their opinions into it. There isnt even anything difficult like considering the impact of the modern shift on it. It was an infield fly, period, and that call is part of the rules to protect the Braves from a double play in that exact situation. You should also keep in mind when relying on others to form your opinion, that people who comment or write about baseball for a living WANT to stir **** up, because thats their business.

ORAggieFan said:

---

The problem here is where the "interference" came into play and his base path location doesn't matter. Him being inside did not affect the throw (like if the catcher fielded a bunt). Instead, his last half step was the issue and that was his left foot hitting the middle of the bag. If a runner can't lunge to the bag, then how the hell are they supposed to touch it? Should we put a double bag like softball? Had he been to the right of the foul line it wouldn't have changed him needing to make his last step in line with the base.

As was mentioned, only Astros fans are defending the atrocious call. It's an umpire known for horrible calls making another.

---

Is Harold Reynolds an Astros fan now?

Or perhaps he just doesn't know the rules like you....

OK, people...the interference has NOTHING to do with what happened at the bag. It has nothing to do with the runner hitting glove of the fielder, NOTHING. The runner was touching grass the entire way to 1st base until the very last couple of steps. By rule, when the runner reaches the 45' line they better be on the line or have 1 foot on the line the rest of the way to first. The runner didn't. Easy call, good call, the RIGHT call.

As someone else posted, the amount of people who think they are baseball people but don't actually know the rules is astounding, but not surprising. Same thing goes for many many coaches, they coach but don't know the rules.

Rangers fan btw and don't really care if the Astros win or lose.

LOL, I like how the opposite argument is "oh yeah, well then the bag is in the worng place! What about that!"

The issue on the outfield fly call was timing. He didn't make the call until the SS had already backed away from making a play. He bailed out bad defense.

Aggie1205 said:

---

The issue on the outfield fly call was timing. He didn't make the call until the SS had already backed away from making a play. He bailed out bad defense.

---

Making the call early or late doesn't change the outcome, only the perception by Braves fans and personnel. Its still the right call, based on the rules.

The rule states it must be called immediately. Not waiting to see if the ball will drop or not.

If Sam Holbrook was an NBA official he would call a carry on a guy driving to the basket for the game winning shot in the final 4. He chooses to inject judgement calls at key times when no one else would. I would bet if you review footage of his calls throughout the year how many times in similar situations did he not call interference.

DP

JJxvi said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

OK, people...the interference has NOTHING to do with what happened at the bag. It has nothing to do with the runner hitting glove of the fielder, NOTHING. The runner was touching grass the entire way to 1st base until the very last couple of steps. By rule, when the runner reaches the 45' line they better be on the line or have 1 foot on the line the rest of the way to first. The runner didn't. Easy call, good call, the RIGHT call.

As someone else posted, the amount of people who think they are baseball people but don't actually know the rules is astounding, but not surprising. Same thing goes for many many coaches, they coach but don't know the rules.

Rangers fan btw and don't really care if the Astros win or lose.

---

Sigh. You're wrong. Read the rule. That (being outside the lane) is only the first part of it. The second part of it, for him to be out is the following

Quote:

---

"..., and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base

---

He has to be outside of the lane (part one) AND interfere with the first baseman taking the throw (part two). Part two is a judgement call and it says so, but it is no surprise it got called when first baseman and runner collide and glove goes flying.

---

That's arguing semantics. There doesn't have to be contact for interference to be called.

OBR 5.09 (a)(11)
While running the last half distance from home plate to first base, he runs outside of the three foot running lane and interferes with a fielder's throw to or with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

Exception:
-A runner is allowed to leave the lane for the sole purpose of reachin the bag in his last step, stride, or slide to the base


Had the runner been running in the lane there is still likely contact BUT that's just a baseball play and not interference. The interference is called because he was out of the lane after the 45' line NOT because there was contact. It wasn't about the contact. The contact was secondary to the fact he was out of the lane and because he was out of the lane and then there was contact the call was made even easier.

Quote:

---

The rule states it must be called immediately. Not waiting to see if the ball will drop or not.

If Sam Holbrook was an NBA official he would call a carry on a guy driving to the basket for the game winning shot in the final 4. He chooses to inject judgement calls at key times when no one else would. I would bet if you review footage of his calls throughout the year how many times in similar situations did he not call interference.

---

Im pretty sure that the reason that the shortstop thinks the left fielder called for the ball is because the umpire was yelling infield fly.

There is a comment in the definition of infield fly that says it "should be" called immediately (ie not "must be") and in actual definition it says that the umpire should call it "When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly"

Here is a video where you can see the umpire as well.

Spotted Ag said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

OK, people...the interference has NOTHING to do with what happened at the bag. It has nothing to do with the runner hitting glove of the fielder, NOTHING. The runner was touching grass the entire way to 1st base until the very last couple of steps. By rule, when the runner reaches the 45' line they better be on the line or have 1 foot on the line the rest of the way to first. The runner didn't. Easy call, good call, the RIGHT call.

As someone else posted, the amount of people who think they are baseball people but don't actually know the rules is astounding, but not surprising. Same thing goes for many many coaches, they coach but don't know the rules.

Rangers fan btw and don't really care if the Astros win or lose.

---

Sigh. You're wrong. Read the rule. That (being outside the lane) is only the first part of it. The second part of it, for him to be out is the following

Quote:

---

"..., and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base

---

He has to be outside of the lane (part one) AND interfere with the first baseman taking the throw (part two). Part two is a judgement call and it says so, but it is no surprise it got called when first baseman and runner collide and glove goes flying.

---

That's arguing semantics. There doesn't have to be contact for interference to be called.

OBR 5.09 (a)(11)
While running the last half distance from home plate to first base, he runs outside of the three foot running lane and interferes with a fielder's throw to or with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

Exception:
-A runner is allowed to leave the lane for the sole purpose of reachin the bag in his last step, stride, or slide to the base


Had the runner been running in the lane there is still likely contact BUT that's just a baseball play and not interference. The interference is called because he was out of the lane after the 45' line NOT because there was contact. It wasn't about the contact. The contact was secondary to the fact he was out of the lane and because he was out of the lane and then there was contact the call was made even easier.

---

I posted the full rule earlier. You make it sound like simply running outside of the lane is interference. It is not. It is clear in the rule that is not. Rule 5.09 (a) (11) says that the runner is out when he is outside the lane AND when in the umpires judgement there is interference. The contact is only one type of possible interference, if the throw hit him in the back he would also be out. An umpire could also make the call of interference even without contact, (this would be a much more doubtful judgement for the ump to make IMO). Running outside the lane is not automatically interference and thats what you made it sound like, so thats what Im arguing against.

JJxvi said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

OK, people...the interference has NOTHING to do with what happened at the bag. It has nothing to do with the runner hitting glove of the fielder, NOTHING. The runner was touching grass the entire way to 1st base until the very last couple of steps. By rule, when the runner reaches the 45' line they better be on the line or have 1 foot on the line the rest of the way to first. The runner didn't. Easy call, good call, the RIGHT call.

As someone else posted, the amount of people who think they are baseball people but don't actually know the rules is astounding, but not surprising. Same thing goes for many many coaches, they coach but don't know the rules.

Rangers fan btw and don't really care if the Astros win or lose.

---

Sigh. You're wrong. Read the rule. That (being outside the lane) is only the first part of it. The second part of it, for him to be out is the following

Quote:

---

"..., and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base

---

He has to be outside of the lane (part one) AND interfere with the first baseman taking the throw (part two). Part two is a judgement call and it says so, but it is no surprise it got called when first baseman and runner collide and glove goes flying.

---

That's arguing semantics. There doesn't have to be contact for interference to be called.

OBR 5.09 (a)(11)
While running the last half distance from home plate to first base, he runs outside of the three foot running lane and interferes with a fielder's throw to or with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

Exception:
-A runner is allowed to leave the lane for the sole purpose of reachin the bag in his last step, stride, or slide to the base


Had the runner been running in the lane there is still likely contact BUT that's just a baseball play and not interference. The interference is called because he was out of the lane after the 45' line NOT because there was contact. It wasn't about the contact. The contact was secondary to the fact he was out of the lane and because he was out of the lane and then there was contact the call was made even easier.

---

I posted the full rule earlier. You make it sound like simply running outside of the lane is interference. It is not. It is clear in the rule that is not. Rule 5.09 (a) (11) says that the runner is out when he is outside the lane AND when in the umpires judgement there is interference. The contact is only one type of possible interference, if the throw hit him in the back he would also be out. An umpire could also make the call of interference even without contact, (this would be a much more doubtful judgement for the ump to make IMO). Running outside the lane is not automatically interference and thats what you made it sound like, so thats what Im arguing against.

---

I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I'm not arguing that running outside the lane is the only reason there is interference. And perhaps I've seen SOOOO many people talking about the contact at first being the reason it was called I injected my slant on your statement. Either way, it was the right call and I laugh every time a situation like this comes up and here come all the baseball rule experts that have never actually read, much less opened, a rule book.

RE:Infield Fly

The ruling I want to really see people go ape**** over one day, is for an infield fly to be declared and a runner tag up and take off for the next base when the ball hits the ground, only to be either doubled off or called out on a base appeal because he left for the next base "before the ball is touched" which I am pretty sure is the rule just like tagging up on fly balls.

EDIT: Actually, that doesnt matter does it? I've just confused myself reading the ****ty way a comment on it is written in the rules. Impaled by the infield fly yet again.

It's a difficult judgment call to make because:

"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"

...

"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."


So his last stride (when the interference took place) he was permitted to be inside/on the line, however where that stride originated from he was not permitted to be... but the interference had not yet taken place at that time.

JJxvi said:

---

RE:Infield Fly

The ruling I want to really see people go ape**** over one day, is for an infield fly to be declared and a runner tag up and take off for the next base when the ball hits the ground, only to be either doubled off or called out on a base appeal because he left for the next base "before the ball is touched" which I am pretty sure is the rule just like tagging up on fly balls.

---

If an infield fly is not caught the runners don't have to tag up.

Proposition Joe said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

RE:Infield Fly

The ruling I want to really see people go ape**** over one day, is for an infield fly to be declared and a runner tag up and take off for the next base when the ball hits the ground, only to be either doubled off or called out on a base appeal because he left for the next base "before the ball is touched" which I am pretty sure is the rule just like tagging up on fly balls.

---

If an infield fly is not caught the runners don't have to tag up.

---

Yeah, I know after thinking about it. My mind got turned inside out reading the comments on the definition of infield fly in the rules. I edited above a couple minutes ago.

94chem said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

OK, people...the interference has NOTHING to do with what happened at the bag. It has nothing to do with the runner hitting glove of the fielder, NOTHING. The runner was touching grass the entire way to 1st base until the very last couple of steps. By rule, when the runner reaches the 45' line they better be on the line or have 1 foot on the line the rest of the way to first. The runner didn't. Easy call, good call, the RIGHT call.

As someone else posted, the amount of people who think they are baseball people but don't actually know the rules is astounding, but not surprising. Same thing goes for many many coaches, they coach but don't know the rules.

Rangers fan btw and don't really care if the Astros win or lose.

---

Sigh. You're wrong. Read the rule. That (being outside the lane) is only the first part of it. The second part of it, for him to be out is the following

Quote:

---

"..., and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base

---

He has to be outside of the lane (part one) AND interfere with the first baseman taking the throw (part two). Part two is a judgement call and it says so, but it is no surprise it got called when first baseman and runner collide and glove goes flying.

---

That's arguing semantics. There doesn't have to be contact for interference to be called.

OBR 5.09 (a)(11)
While running the last half distance from home plate to first base, he runs outside of the three foot running lane and interferes with a fielder's throw to or with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

Exception:
-A runner is allowed to leave the lane for the sole purpose of reachin the bag in his last step, stride, or slide to the base


Had the runner been running in the lane there is still likely contact BUT that's just a baseball play and not interference. The interference is called because he was out of the lane after the 45' line NOT because there was contact. It wasn't about the contact. The contact was secondary to the fact he was out of the lane and because he was out of the lane and then there was contact the call was made even easier.

---

If they had NOT called interference, Hinch would have never said a word. The topic would have never even been mentioned.

---

That's not true. After Yuli's glove was knocked off his hand and the ball went by he was looking to the ump with his hands out as if saying, "where's the interference call" before he gave chase to the ball. Hinch knows the rules, certainly better than the announcers who were saying it's only the last step that matters.


That said. The fact of the matter is that the rule was followed and the runner was ruled out. There is a lane on the right of the line for the runner to be in when the play is close. It exists for EXACTLY THIS PURPOSE. On a close play, the runner has a lane where he is supposed to be to prevent EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. You can argue that it's a bad rule, but it exists to prevent this precise situation, and it was applied correctly. If Turner is in his running lane and hits Yuli's glove letting the ball go wide, he is safe and they have 2nd and 3rd with nobody out. He wasn't, and the rule was applied correctly.

If Turner had run to first in the designated runners lane, he wouldn't have hit Yuli's glove. Maybe he's out, maybe not. The ball was certainly playable for Yuli, we've seen him come off the bag several times to make sure the ball doesn't get by, he's a good 1B.

If Turner had followed the rule, they might have had man on 2nd with 1 out, or 1st and 2nd with no outs. As it is, he did exactly what that rule is intended to prevent, and he was called on it.

Except it's still not that simple as Turner is allowed to be outside the runners lane in his last stride to 1st base (where the physical impact took place).

So it comes down to the umpire's judgement of whether or not where Turner was running BEFORE the physical impact took place caused the physical impact.

Where the ball/glove/Turner collided you can easily make a case that it took place in a legal "final stride" area. The judgement should be whether or not the umpire felt him running in an un-permitted area before that final stride interfered with the play.

Based on the replays and to most watching, it didn't... But once the judgement call was made, it was unlikely to be reversed.

"So it comes down to the umpire's judgement of whether or not where Turner was running BEFORE the physical impact took place caused the physical impact."

The "final stride" nonsense the announcers were talking about is not part of the rule.It comes down to whether or not the umpires felt that Turner was running outside his lane, and if that caused interference. If Turner is in his lane, he's coming from there instead from inside the line and he most likely doesn't hit Yuli's glove. Whether or not you agree with that statement is irrelevant, the umpires thought so, and applied the rule accordingly.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Except it's still not that simple as Turner is allowed to be outside the runners lane in his last stride to 1st base (where the physical impact took place).

So it comes down to the umpire's judgement of whether or not where Turner was running BEFORE the physical impact took place caused the physical impact.

Where the ball/glove/Turner collided you can easily make a case that it took place in a legal "final stride" area. The judgement should be whether or not the umpire felt him running in an un-permitted area before that final stride interfered with the play.

Based on the replays and to most watching, it didn't... But once the judgement call was made, it was unlikely to be reversed.

---

I've wondered for years why they don't put another base outside the line like they do in softball. Rather than asking a RH batter to comply with an impossible rule, why not add the extra base? Plus it would prevent injuries like the one that nearly ended Ferguson Jenkins' career (spiked achilles).

Again, I've been a baseball fan for 41 years, and I've never seen interference called on a ball hit to the left side. The fielder has a huge throwing lane already, and any halfway decent first baseman would have caught that ball. Even a halfway decent left-handed first baseman would have caught that ball. Gurriel looked like a 2nd baseman covering first on a bunt on that play. There was no reason for him to be close to that runner. He should have snagged it 3 feet earlier in its flight.

kb2001 said:

---

"So it comes down to the umpire's judgement of whether or not where Turner was running BEFORE the physical impact took place caused the physical impact."

The "final stride" nonsense the announcers were talking about is not part of the rule.It comes down to whether or not the umpires felt that Turner was running outside his lane, and if that caused interference. If Turner is in his lane, he's coming from there instead from inside the line and he most likely doesn't hit Yuli's glove. Whether or not you agree with that statement is irrelevant, the umpires thought so, and applied the rule accordingly.

---

It is absolutely part of the rule:

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.


The position Turner was in when the glove/ball/him met was a legal position for him to be in (ref above: "final stride" rule).

The position Turner was in immediately prior to that final stride was not a legal position.

Just like any batter's first few steps out of the box outside their lane doesn't immediately create an interference call at 85 feet further down the line, to most people on live watch and on replay, the illegal position Turner was in immediately prior to his final stride did not cause the interference.

The umpire felt otherwise (or more likely was in a position after the initial judgement call not to go back).

Implying Gurriel isnt a halfway decent first baseman is probably the dumbest thing on this thread. Making that catch where the ball is tailing into the runner is probably the most difficult play a first baseman has and in fact they made a whole rule about it even drawing extra lines on the field where the runner is supposed to run to try and keep it from being an issue.

The ONLY reason the call was made is because the ball happened to arrive at the same time as Turner.

Turner was directly over the bag and the fact that he was on the grass at one point never interfered with play or the throw.

Maybe technically correct call, but it never gets made without the ball and Turner arriving at the same time.

Agree. His first 5 steps looking at his left foot took him 80%+ toward first base and they were on the grass, inside the baseline. Even the announcers said in that situation you are taught to throw at the base runner. He clearly impacted the throwing lane, regardless of hitting Yuli's glove.

KerrvilleAg said:

---

Agree. His first 5 steps looking at his left foot took him 80%+ toward first base and they were on the grass, inside the baseline. Even the announcers said in that situation you are taught to throw at the base runner. He clearly impacted the throwing lane, regardless of hitting Yuli's glove.

---

Impacted the throwing lane? Not in the least.

That's your judgement, it's a judgment call and they called him out.

Correct.

I'm not concerned about the actual call for the purposes of this question.

I'm curious about the ejection. Martinez is obviously heated, but there's a point where it looks like the older field ump says something, and then that's what seems to really set Martinez off.

What did the ump say?

Martinez is as foul mouthed as they come. Probably called the umpire a fat f'r that couldn't move his lard azz to see what actually occurred and the ump said well f you too.

KerrvilleAg said:

---

That's your judgement, it's a judgment call and they called him out.

---

Based on your post referencing players being taught to throw at the baserunner I took "throwing lane" to mean where the player throwing the ball directed his throw. The throw wasn't impacted at all, it was the catch but I understand that you likely meant both.

KerrvilleAg said:

---

Martinez is as foul mouthed as they come. Probably called the umpire a fat f'r that couldn't move his lard azz to see what actually occurred and the ump said well f you too.

---

Should have been dumped a lot sooner than that.