Proposition Joe said:

---

A very simple rule (that requires 2 edits)

---

Clarifications, so that someone wouldnt go "nuh uh! He could also be outside the lane!" or whatever.

You posted the exact rule comment a minute ago. It says...

Quote:

---

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.

---

He did not exit the lane, he was never in the lane. Neither was he there for the sole purpose of touching first base, he was still in his straight running line all the way from the batters box. The idea that the runners final stride is exempt if thats when the interference occurs is nonsense. It doesn't say that "he is permitted to be outside the lane on his final stride", it says that he is permitted to exit the lane to touch the base in his final stride, which DOES NOT apply in this case.

Proposition Joe said:

---

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.

---

Your last comment is where I'm at and why it's a bad call in my opinion. For it to be interference it has to satisfy both parts of the rule, and although Turner runs up the line on the left hand side of the line, there is no contact with the fielder until Turner is in the air lunging for the bag and at that point he is in a legal position.

Also, look at the replay from Altuve's at bat the next inning and you see that he takes the exact same line to the base. There is nothing wrong with what Turner did, a bad throw from the pitcher that tailed into the runner caused the umpire to consider applying his "judgment" and interject himself into the game. Perhaps all the talk about robo-umps has got them riled up and they think they need to assert how important they are as the on field arbiters of the rules.

Another thing that I think was mentioned in the broadcast is, They were reviewing whether the rule was applied correctly. The play itself could not be reviewed because it was a judgment call. Interference or not, the call was made on the field and could not be overturned. The only review was if the rule applied correctly.

So, It really didn't matter where or if he interfered with the catch in the replay. The call was he did. It stands.

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.

---

But... They are fat ****ers that can't move their lard asses to see what actually occurred... I'm not sure what the issue is here.

Quote:

---

Your last comment is where I'm at and why it's a bad call in my opinion. For it to be interference it has to satisfy both parts of the rule, and although Turner runs up the line on the left hand side of the line, there is no contact with the fielder until Turner is in the air lunging for the bag and at that point he is in a legal position.

Also, look at the replay from Altuve's at bat the next inning and you see that he takes the exact same line to the base. There is nothing wrong with what Turner did, a bad throw from the pitcher that tailed into the runner caused the umpire to consider applying his "judgment" and interject himself into the game. Perhaps all the talk about robo-umps has got them riled up and they think they need to assert how important they are as the on field arbiters of the rules.

---

Every good runner takes that same exact line to the base. Its the fastest route. If they interfere while doing it they are out (Altuve didn't).

Again, the rule does not say that the runner's last stride is permitted to be inside the foul line, it says that the runner is permitted to exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base, which did not apply make his path legal in this case. He did not exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base (if he had his path would have been legal). All your (and the commentator's) extrapolations about the final stride aren't in the rules, they are just misconceptions from bad explanations of the rule.

TexAg1987 said:

---

Another thing that I think was mentioned in the broadcast is, They were reviewing whether the rule was applied correctly. The play itself could not be reviewed because it was a judgment call. Interference or not, the call was made on the field and could not be overturned. The only review was if the rule applied correctly.

So, It really didn't matter where or if he interfered with the catch in the replay. The call was he did. It stands.

---

Yep the ump signalled out after the review even though that shouldn't have been needed. And I guess it took over four mins for them to wake up someone or to find a rulebook?

There is another video I have seen from left field where you can better tell that Holbrook didn't raise his arm and make the infield fly call rule until after the SS had shown he didn't have it. To assume the SS backed off due to Holbrook yelling is unfair.

I wish one of the pool reporters had directly asked Torre is Holbrook is a top 6 umpire in baseball. Make him say it on the record. The stats that we can now see show he isnt.

I also wish MLB.com or someone who has access would go back and see how many times that Holbrook did or didnt make the same call this past season. It's like if the NBA tried to enforce traveling strictly in the NBA finals game 6 all of a sudden. If you dont call it that way during the season, don't start in a championship series.

JJxvi said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last comment is where I'm at and why it's a bad call in my opinion. For it to be interference it has to satisfy both parts of the rule, and although Turner runs up the line on the left hand side of the line, there is no contact with the fielder until Turner is in the air lunging for the bag and at that point he is in a legal position.

Also, look at the replay from Altuve's at bat the next inning and you see that he takes the exact same line to the base. There is nothing wrong with what Turner did, a bad throw from the pitcher that tailed into the runner caused the umpire to consider applying his "judgment" and interject himself into the game. Perhaps all the talk about robo-umps has got them riled up and they think they need to assert how important they are as the on field arbiters of the rules.

---

Every good runner takes that same exact line to the base. Its the fastest route. If they interfere while doing it they are out (Altuve didn't).

Again, the rule does not say that the runner's last stride is permitted to be inside the foul line, it says that the runner is permitted to exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base, which did not apply make his path legal in this case. He did not exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base (if he had his path would have been legal). All your (and the commentator's) extrapolations about the final stride aren't in the rules.

---

I think some clarification would be welcome as it relates to this rule. I believe that most people think the spirit of the rule to be more about dribblers/bunts up the 1st base line where the catcher/pitcher/1st baseman has no throwing lane to get the runner out if the runner is running inside the line. In fact in these situations we often see the defender on 1st base switch to the foul territory side of the bag to increase the angle if necessary.

In this case the hit is up the 3rd base line and Peacock has a huge throwing lane and Turner has no reason to believe that he is interfering with the play by taking a direct path to the base. The spirit of the rule is not meant to reward defenders for off line throws but rather to prohibit intentional hindering of a play being made.

I 100% agree that it's a judgment call and can't be overturned, but if the ball is hit to the left hand side I find the umpire's judgment to not be in line with the spirit of the rule.

Aggie1205 said:

---

There is another video I have seen from left field where you can better tell that Holbrook didn't raise his arm and make the infield fly call rule until after the SS had shown he didn't have it. To assume the SS backed off due to Holbrook yelling is unfair.

I wish one of the pool reporters had directly asked Torre is Holbrook is a top 6 umpire in baseball. Make him say it on the record. The stats that we can now see show he isnt.

I also wish MLB.com or someone who has access would go back and see how many times that Holbrook did or didnt make the same call this past season. It's like if the NBA tried to enforce traveling strictly in the NBA finals game 6 all of a sudden. If you dont call it that way during the season, don't start in a championship series.

---

I dont have an opinion on whether it was good umpiring, it probably wasn't. 100% believe it was the correct call though by rule.

AggieEP said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last comment is where I'm at and why it's a bad call in my opinion. For it to be interference it has to satisfy both parts of the rule, and although Turner runs up the line on the left hand side of the line, there is no contact with the fielder until Turner is in the air lunging for the bag and at that point he is in a legal position.

Also, look at the replay from Altuve's at bat the next inning and you see that he takes the exact same line to the base. There is nothing wrong with what Turner did, a bad throw from the pitcher that tailed into the runner caused the umpire to consider applying his "judgment" and interject himself into the game. Perhaps all the talk about robo-umps has got them riled up and they think they need to assert how important they are as the on field arbiters of the rules.

---

Every good runner takes that same exact line to the base. Its the fastest route. If they interfere while doing it they are out (Altuve didn't).

Again, the rule does not say that the runner's last stride is permitted to be inside the foul line, it says that the runner is permitted to exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base, which did not apply make his path legal in this case. He did not exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base (if he had his path would have been legal). All your (and the commentator's) extrapolations about the final stride aren't in the rules.

---

I think some clarification would be welcome as it relates to this rule. I believe that most people think the spirit of the rule to be more about dribblers/bunts up the 1st base line where the catcher/pitcher/1st baseman has no throwing lane to get the runner out if the runner is running inside the line. In fact in these situations we often see the defender on 1st base switch to the foul territory side of the bag to increase the angle if necessary.

In this case the hit is up the 3rd base line and Peacock has a huge throwing lane and Turner has no reason to believe that he is interfering with the play by taking a direct path to the base. The spirit of the rule is not meant to reward defenders for off line throws but rather to prohibit intentional hindering of a play being made.

I 100% agree that it's a judgment call and can't be overturned, but if the ball is hit to the left hand side I find the umpire's judgment to not be in line with the spirit of the rule.

---

The rule is the rule and you're supposed to run in the box (both feet, one can be on the either line). At this level the margins are so small that you gain an advantage by running in an illegal path, and so every runner does it. You are just risking that call, and since the fielders are so good, the chances of you interfering are low.

I also completely disagree with your "side of the infield" argument too, especially at lower levels of baseball. I played first base, even on a throw from second or shortstop, as a first baseman if the throw is up the line toward home plate, the first baseman is 100% allowed to stretch as far as he can toward homeplate in fair territory to grab that ball. If he gets plowed over by a runner inside the foul line that is also interference by this rule. I disagree that there is a "spirit" of this rule about bunts or whatever...the spirit of the rule is "make the runner run in this lane so he is out of the first basemans way and nobody gets hurt including the runner getting hit by a ball".

People have created any other misconception in their head, and no amount of "clarification" will fix it other than educating them about the rules. The problem comes with people who have these misconceptions comment about them as their job as tv announcers when they dont know wtf they are talking about, and that makes everyone that doesnt know or read the rules think they understand them when they dont.

Quote:

---

Again, the rule does not say that the runner's last stride is permitted to be inside the foul line, it says that the runner is permitted to exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base, which did not apply make his path legal in this case. He did not exit the lane for the sole purpose of reaching the base (if he had his path would have been legal). All your (and the commentator's) extrapolations about the final stride aren't in the rules, they are just misconceptions from bad explanations of the rule.

---

It's really how you interpret this part about "exiting" the lane. To me, logic dictates that if you are allowed to "exit the lane" then the lane becomes irrelevant, not a prerequisite. It no longer mattered that he wasn't in the lane.

There is no interpretation needed, it is black and white.

"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."

Its been established presumably already that he was inside the baseline, right? So now there is another permission granted to the runner in the rule comment. And so then you have to ask yourself the question as an umpire would need to.

Did the runner, in this case, exit the threefoot lane in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base?

The answer is clearly no.

There is no logic needed. It states exactly what the runner is permitted to do. You trying to take another mile for the runner by saying, "well, if he's permitted to do that, then uh, logically, it should mean the lane is irrelevant!" is nonsense.

The rule was written in a very specific way with specific language about both "being for the purpose of touching the bag", and also for being only in the "immediate vicinity of the base". They could have easily written the rule to say that it is not interference if you are inside the foul line on your last step, stride, slide, or reach regardless of circumstance. That is a much easier rule to write in fact. They wrote it specifically so that it permitted a runner running legally inside the lane, to exit that lane on his last step and not be called for interference. They didnt write it so that at the last second an illegal runner gets amnesty on the last step. The whole point of the rule is to get the damn runner to try and run inside the lane and out of the fielders way.

It still comes down to a judgment call on whether or not Turner impacted Gurriel's ability to make the catch.

Reality is with Gurriel stretching with his left hand and his left foot being on the bag, Turner could have been on the other side of the line and either the ball still sails like it did or Gurriel gets run over in foul territory.

It was a bad throw but Houston got bailed out with a judgement call.

Yes it is a judgement call. It says so in the rule.

The part about where the runner is allowed to be is not a judgement call though, and he was not in a legal basepath. If he had run in the runners lane, and only exited on his last step to reach the base, he could not have been called for interference via this rule regardless of judgement, but he didnt.

Proposition Joe said:

---

It still comes down to a judgment call on whether or not Turner impacted Gurriel's ability to make the catch.

Reality is with Gurriel stretching with his left hand and his left foot being on the bag, Turner could have been on the other side of the line and either the ball still sails like it did or Gurriel gets run over in foul territory.

It was a bad throw but Houston got bailed out with a judgement call.

---

It really was not a bad throw, one foot away from a perfect target

Quote:

---

They wrote it specifically so that it permitted a runner running legally inside the lane, to exit that lane on his last step and not be called for interference. They didnt write it so that at the last second an illegal runner gets amnesty on the last step. The whole point of the rule is to get the damn runner to try and run inside the lane and out of the fielders way.

---

Did the rules allow for Turner to be outside the path for the "being for the purpose of touching the bag" and being "in the immediate vicinity of the bag"? Yes. Upon being in the area he's allowed to exit, it's no longer required that he be in the path.

Did said interference occur in this immediate vicinity? Yes. If the interference occurred outside this vicinity, then he's clearly out.

The point of the rule is to provide a path for a no-angle throw to first, not to give bad fielding a free out.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

They wrote it specifically so that it permitted a runner running legally inside the lane, to exit that lane on his last step and not be called for interference. They didnt write it so that at the last second an illegal runner gets amnesty on the last step. The whole point of the rule is to get the damn runner to try and run inside the lane and out of the fielders way.

---

Did the rules allow for Turner to be outside the path for the "being for the purpose of touching the bag" and being "in the immediate vicinity of the bag"? Yes. Upon being in the area he's allowed to exit, it's no longer required that he be in the path.

Did said interference occur in this immediate vicinity? Yes. If the interference occurred outside this vicinity, then he's clearly out.

The point of the rule is to provide a path for a no-angle throw to first, not to give bad fielding a free out.

---

The rule permits him "to exit the lane" with some conditions, which didnt happen. At all. You can argue yourself into oblivion with the chewbacca defense all you want

FWIW, the umpires association agrees with JJ. You have to be in the runners lane for the exemption of leaving the lane to touch the bag to apply. I agree with the call, but have always thought the rule is stupid.

Quote:

---

FWIW, the umpires association agrees with JJ.

---

You expected the association to disagree with the ump?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

FWIW, the umpires association agrees with JJ.

---

You expected the association to disagree with the ump?

---

Translation:If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

While it's been done before, no, i don't expect them to. However, I also done expect them to confirm the call and outline the rule and how it applies in this situation if it were the wrong call.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

FWIW, the umpires association agrees with JJ.

---

You expected the association to disagree with the ump?

---

What we are talking about is not in the rule, subject to a bunch of interpretation, it is black and white. It is a comment on the rule that they felt was needed to clarify a call. I'll write it out again.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Everything after "permitted to" is a statement of fact that can be answered by a yes/no question and its purpose is to clarify a situation created in the rule where they dont want the runner called for interference on a specific technicality (he interfered because he was inside the baseline when he had to touch the base).

So honestly answer this question for me, without a bunch of gobbledegook opinions or "logic"

Last night, did the runner 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?

Yes or no?

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

The guys defending the call are either diehard Astros fans or ones that don't watch much baseball. That call is almost never made unless the runner is way inside the line and being egregious about it. Turner barely was inside the line briefly and was even with the bag when he arrived at first. The ball and runner basically arrived at the same time, that is baseball. If that rule was enforced often during the season by the letter of the law it would be called often but it isn't. I bet they clarify the rule in the off-season.

---

That's the same thing....

Quote:

---

So honestly answer this question for me, without a bunch of gobbledegook opinions or "logic"

Last night, did the runner 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?

Yes or no?

---

No, but not relevant, provided the interference occurs in the area in which the runner has the exception of leaving the path. Either he has the right to be in fair territory or he doesn't. Either the interference occurred in this area where he had the right to be in fair territory or it didn't. (I am not sure what you expected with your lawyering)

The ump association is a biased contributor. I expect them to pick the interpretations that makes them look good.

And if the argument shifts to "where did the interference occur" then I am fine amending my position. I just don't think the rules were meant to create a situation where you have to establish position in this path to gain rights.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

So honestly answer this question for me, without a bunch of gobbledegook opinions or "logic"

Last night, did the runner 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?

Yes or no?

---

No, but not relevant, provided the interference occurs in the area in which the runner has the exception of leaving the path. Either he has the right to be in fair territory or he doesn't. Either the interference occurred in this area where he had the right to be in fair territory or it didn't. (I am not sure what you expected with your lawyering)

The ump association is a biased contributor. I expect them to pick the interpretations that makes them look good.

And if the argument shifts to "where did the interference occur" then I am fine amending my position. I just don't think the rules were meant to create a situation where you have to establish position in this path to gain rights.

---

No. but

JJxvi said:

---

There is no interpretation needed, it is black and white.

"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."

Its been established presumably already that he was inside the baseline, right? So now there is another permission granted to the runner in the rule comment. And so then you have to ask yourself the question as an umpire would need to.

Did the runner, in this case, exit the threefoot lane in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base?

The answer is clearly no.

---

Lets re-read the rule and swap out exit for the Merriam Webster definition of the word exit, in intransitive verb form.

Quote:

---

"The batter-runner is permitted to exit go out of 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 lets ask again

Quote:

---

Did the runner, in this case, exit go out of the threefoot lane in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base?

---

I'd say yes.

Also, exit means "go out from" not "go out of" you are changing the meaning through logical fallacy.

JJxvi said:

---

Also, exit means "go out from" not "go out of" you are changing the meaning through logical fallacy.

---

getaloadofthisguy.jpeg

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exit

JJxvi said:

---

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.

---

If Gurriel is a good first baseman, then why was his left foot on the bag? You probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

You receive the ball with your left foot on the bag sometimes when the throw is coming from anywhere in front of the pitching rubber. Or at least thats what I was taught and always did. It allows you to face the throw and present a target inside the bag away from the runners lane (at expense of being able to stretch as much toward the throw). Similarly on a throw from the catcher behind home plate you right foot would be on the bag with the rest of your body to the left of the bag so the target is such that the line of the throw doesnt cross the runner's path.

Quote:

---

WTF? Out of curiosity, why do you think this path was created then? Aesthetics? The entire point of the path is to create an area where the runner is to run in order to "gain rights" (ie to be exempt from being called for interference). Thats like the only reason it exists at all.

---

This is a circular argument. You can't use the situation we are talking about to prove the situation we are talking about.

The path was created to give a path to first base for the fielders for dropped 3rd strikes, bunts, etc where there's no angle. If Peacock hits him square in the back 5 feet from the bag, I'm on your side.

I should clarify "have rights". Of course you have rights when you are in it. But I don't believe it establishes rights once you outside of it, as is your position.

Example...

http://www.qcbaseball.com/skills/infield-playing-first-base.aspx

Quote:

---

From the Catcher

Occasionally you will need to catch a ball that has been fielded by the catcher. This could be on a bunt out in front of the base or a dropped third strike. After fielding the ball close to the first base line, the catcher will need to move to one side of the foul line or the other to make sure his throw will not hit the runner. You will need to position yourself the same side of the foul line that the catcher is on. If he is in foul territory, step across the base well before the runner gets there and use your right foot to touch first. If the catcher is in fair territory, use your left foot to contact the bag. Always give the first base to the runner.

---