Did the ump fail to make the call?

Yep.

Hasn't been much of a home field advantage for the Rays so far...as far as the umps are concerned anyway.

Yes he did.

Looked okay to me.

What surprised me is the Rays did not even argue it...I told my wife the pitcher should have drilled the runner in the back.

Definetely blew it. Blew the out call on the pick off play to second also.

I just happen to agree with jerseydad.
How about the 2nd baseball catch the ball!!

Did he interfere with the player catching the ball? Judgement The rule states he must run outside the last 45 feet. How many times does the runner run in this area? It was a judgement call. The fielder dropped the ball period. If the ball would have hit the runner he would be out.

The rule states that the runner must have both feet between the lines with the exception that as he reaches first base he may step outside to touch first base. He clearly ran to the inside with both feet. So Will, are you saying that if the ball had nicked the runner's shoulder he would have been out automatically? Or would it still have been a judgement call?

Interfere is the word used in the rule. If he blocks the view of the fielder is that not interference? How about making the pitcher throw around his body, is that not interference?

Of course it was a judgement call. Bad judgement.

That is, alas, a rule rarely called. Given the importance of the game and the score, I was very surprised there was no.....discussion.

Any regular Rays-watchers here? Is Maddon not one to argue?

quote:

Originally posted by JT:
What surprised me is the Rays did not even argue it...I told my wife the pitcher should have drilled the runner in the back.

I agree with JT, he should have drilled him "lightly" and he would have gotten the call

FLORIDA

True Confessions:

I used to teach batters to drop their bat on the first base line on that play so the catcher would trip over it.

It would be nice to hear from some of our umpire experts. I thought it was pretty clear interference by the B/R. The first baseman (to me) did not get a clear look at the throw, or he obviously would have caught it.

Here's OBR 6.05(k)

The batter is out when....

"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;"

"interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base".

I think the 1st baseman had a clear view of the ball and was not comprimised. If a major leaguer can't catch that throw then same on him.

Does the name JC Martin ring a bell with anyone? It may be the most famous interference on the throw from catcher to first while running outside the box, non call in baseball history

quote:

Originally posted by Dad04:
FLORIDA

True Confessions:

I used to teach batters to drop their bat on the first base line on that play so the catcher would trip over it.

SCOUNDREL!!!

In reviewing the play and searching the umpire websites, here is the best explanation I can provide....

MLB holds its players to a higher standard of play even when it might seem to go against the rule book... the rule book it also must be said is not always updated but they rely on MLB umpire official interpretations to govern play...(rule changes must be approved by a slew of committees, including the players union, umpire interpretations do not...)

Official interpretation from Fitzpatrick 185-280

"As long as a he does not interfere the batter runner may run anywhere he likes.."

So the act of being outside the running lane alone is not enough to have interference called, the runner has to interfere with the F3's ability to catch the throw. Yes, the runner was outside of the lane, but the umpires judged that he did not interfere with the fielding or the throw....The throw got there cleanly, hit Pena in the mitt, he just didn't catch it.

Does that match up word for word in the rule book, no...but you are not going to get a MLB umpire to call out a runner just because he is out of the lane..(like HS)....and the proof is that neither team had a complaint about the call.....

Play on....

Hope this helps...

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

Originally posted by Dad04:
FLORIDA

True Confessions:

I used to teach batters to drop their bat on the first base line on that play so the catcher would trip over it.

SCOUNDREL!!!

Thank you. It's difficult to change without first acknowledging the problem. I'm trying one issue at a time. One down. A few more to go.

The saving grace here was that Kazmir got the third out on the very next pitch, no harm done.

I frankly could not understand why Maddon wasn't out there arguing/appealing. But I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome of the game.

Thanks Piaa.

He could not pick up the ball because the runner was in his line of sight inside the running lane. The reason he dropped the ball is because he couldnt see it until it was right on top of him. If Kaz had hit him with the ball would you agree with the runner being called out?

It was smart baserunning. When the ball is inside you run inside and hope you obstruct the field of vision of the fielder. When its outside you run outside and hope to do the same thing. You hope the umpire does not make the call. Its your only hope so you go for it. Burrell ran inside on purpose. Kaz did not have time to step further inside to create a better throwing lane. There is no way Pena drops that ball if his vision of the throw is not obstructed by the runner who was "clearly outside the running lane."

Now why do coaches say "If the ball causes you to have to make and inside play and the runner is inside the throwing lane do not try to throw over him. Do not try to throw around him. Drill him in the back and we will be out raising hel if we dont get the call." I bet you if that play happens again someone will be wearing one in the back.

To me all you have to do is ask yourself this question. If the runner had been hit outside the running lane with the throw should he have been called out?" yes. The runner does not have to be hit or should not have to be hit to get the proper call made on that play.

Bad no call. He should have been called out. Im glad it had no bearing on the game.

Absolutely. Maddon should have been out there in a heartbeat. They wouldn't change the call but he could've been sewing the seeds for future games.

Maybe he built up good karma, because the Rays sure got the benefit of a bad no-call last night! And that one might well have changed the outcome of the game. We'll never know.

That guys behind the plate last night was BRUTAL! How does he not see Rollins shirt get hit by that pitch? And the strike zone was all over the place.

However, the slow motion cameras now are amazing. It really shows how good most of these umps calls are.

Sorry, back to the topic. If they are not going to typically call the runner out then why do we continue to waste all of that field paint to put the lane out there? He was CLEARLY inside the line and should have been called out in my opinion.

I really like that camera they're using from above the plate. It gives a great look at inside/outside pitches, although it is from a forward angle so that when the ball crosses the plate in that view, it's actually already behind the plate.

I feel like they used to use a camera from above a lot more than they do now. Maybe they can only use it in Tampa with plenty of places to put that camera in the roof. I prefer the camera to their strike zone graphics, because I have yet to put my full faith in the accuracy of those graphics. For example, there was a pitch last night that the camera clearly showed going over the corner of the plate (and a camera from directly above would have shown the ball getting even more of the plate), but the graphic showed the pitch being off the plate.