I'd be interested in any of our umpiring pros' take on the protest filed by Mike Scosia last night in the first inning against the White Sox.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The protest will be denied. Scosia does not understand the rule.
The rule protects the fielder catching the throw, not the catcher making the throw. It was not a quality throw, coming in wide and pulling the fielder off the bag. The runner did not interfere with F3.
If the catcher had made a quality throw and the runner prevented the fielder from catching it, while outside the lane, interference would be the proper call.
The rule protects the fielder catching the throw, not the catcher making the throw. It was not a quality throw, coming in wide and pulling the fielder off the bag. The runner did not interfere with F3.
If the catcher had made a quality throw and the runner prevented the fielder from catching it, while outside the lane, interference would be the proper call.
+1 Jimmy
Some are sure to disagree with this, but if a runner was inside the baseline on a catcher's throw, we always tried to put the throw between the runners numbers. It would be hard to argue that the runner didn't interfere with the fielder catching the throw. Had Iannetta done this I think there would have been a different outcome.
quote:Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
Some are sure to disagree with this, but if a runner was inside the baseline on a catcher's throw, we always tried to put the throw between the runners numbers. It would be hard to argue that the runner didn't interfere with the fielder catching the throw. Had Iannetta done this I think there would have been a different outcome.
That is precisely what has to happen.
To the surprise of no one who can read a rule book, MLB denied the Angels' protest today.
Is Scosia that dumb or does he just like to argue?
He had to have known the rule on this.
He had to have known the rule on this.
Hard to say. MLB laid the ruling out in small and simple words and he still wants to argue.
Scosia: "In my opinion, there's no way from a fixed point of home plate to first base in a lane that a catcher has to throw a ball at a runner who's a solid 3 feet inside the lane on the grass can possibly not impair the ability of a catcher to make that throw. It's just physically impossible to say that it does not impair that. But, still, the judgment of the umpires is the second part of the equation and we'll live with that."
The rule, as pointed out before, does not protect the catcher's throw, it protects the fielder catching the throw.
I'll never understand how people making a living managing a baseball team do not take the time to COMPREHEND the rule book. People spend more time reading the rules to Scrabble than some managers seem to read the baseball rules.
Scosia: "In my opinion, there's no way from a fixed point of home plate to first base in a lane that a catcher has to throw a ball at a runner who's a solid 3 feet inside the lane on the grass can possibly not impair the ability of a catcher to make that throw. It's just physically impossible to say that it does not impair that. But, still, the judgment of the umpires is the second part of the equation and we'll live with that."
The rule, as pointed out before, does not protect the catcher's throw, it protects the fielder catching the throw.
I'll never understand how people making a living managing a baseball team do not take the time to COMPREHEND the rule book. People spend more time reading the rules to Scrabble than some managers seem to read the baseball rules.
I find hard to believe he didn't know that. He is an ex-catcher and that was one of the first things I was taught as a catcher.
quote:
The rule, as pointed out before, does not protect the catcher's throw, it protects the fielder catching the throw.
Logically if they are going to have the runners lane it should protect the fielder and thrower. In this case FED has it right. BRs know what they are doing when they are outside the running lane...They are making harder on the defense. I'd say that is OK except that they specifically made the runners lane to not allow this. Yet it is ineffective because it doesn't protect the player who needs protecting the most.
quote:Originally posted by NavyUmp:quote:
The rule, as pointed out before, does not protect the catcher's throw, it protects the fielder catching the throw.
Yet it is ineffective because it doesn't protect the player who needs protecting the most.
On the contrary, the rulesmakers wrote the rules so that it DOES protect the player who needs it the most...the fielder who has no control over where the throw goes. The catcher needs only to make an accurate throw.
Here's another one to bandy around.
quote:Originally posted by TheRick:quote:Originally posted by TheRick:
Here's another one to bandy around.
Link
That is an easy one. The runner is out for running on the grass especially where the ball was rolling.
I think the throw was quality enough to have been caught if the runner wasn't there. Since he was and was not in the running lane, he is out b/c you can see F3 pulling away to avoid contact. Thus, BR interfered with F3.
Well, I don't know what was called, but if this were my call to make, I would have the batter out for interfering with the pitcher. The subsequent throw is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Well, I don't know what was called, but if this were my call to make, I would have the batter out for interfering with the pitcher. The subsequent throw is irrelevant.
That may have been what was called (the announcers are clueless). In that case, neither the baseline nor the running lane is relevant to the call.