MLB Pennant Races

ABSORBER posted:

22and25 posted:

I think some of you are ignoring the path Turner was on before taking the definitive step to the bag.  His left foot was in the grass the last time it touched before contacting the base.  It was also in the grass the 5 times it contacted the ground before that as well.  He was basically cutting across the 1st baseman back to the bag when he made that definitive step so many are hanging their argument on.  It was while cutting from the grass to the bag that contact with the glove was made.  He obstructed the ability to make the play with his path to the bag which is why the rule is in place.  Had he been in the designated running lane and veered to the bag he likely would not have contacted the glove and if he did it would have been a legal move.  As the rule is written, it's the correct call regardless if you like or agree with the rule as written or who you want to win the game.

It wasn't a running lane violation unless of course it was, in the umpires judgement. His judgment was poor.

To qualify as a running lane violation the runner had to have interfered with the play; he absolutely did not. Turner was nowhere near the path of the ball in flight and did not force the fielder to change the delivery of his throw or the path prior to him releasing the ball. That's like saying a second baseman's throw to first would have been impacted by Turner not being in the running lane!

Had it been a bunt fielded in front of home plate then it could have been a violation. Judgement call of course. In the bunt example, had the fielder (let's use the catcher as an example) dropped the ball before delivering it to first and the runner beat the throw it would be poor judgement to rule it a running lane violation. Unless of course the umpire judged the runners path to first caused the fielder to drop the ball before his throw. Again, that would also be poor judgment!

It was an interference call, a judgement call as you indicate, one that would not have been made had the runner's path been consistent with the rules governing such calls specific to the 1st base line.  There is a reason for the running lane, to avoid such issues.  There is also a reason it starts well down the line, to allow runner's ample time to adjust their path to get into the running lane.  The fact that Turner's last step with his left foot was in the grass means he was well into fair territory at the bag and he obviously made contact with the glove, knocking it off.  Pretty much the definition of interference as the rules are written specific to 1st base.  It might not have been a running lane violation but being in the lane would have obviated the interference call.  Don't want to get called, run in the lane or at least somewhat close to it.

22and25 posted:

ABSORBER posted:

22and25 posted:

I think some of you are ignoring the path Turner was on before taking the definitive step to the bag.  His left foot was in the grass the last time it touched before contacting the base.  It was also in the grass the 5 times it contacted the ground before that as well.  He was basically cutting across the 1st baseman back to the bag when he made that definitive step so many are hanging their argument on.  It was while cutting from the grass to the bag that contact with the glove was made.  He obstructed the ability to make the play with his path to the bag which is why the rule is in place.  Had he been in the designated running lane and veered to the bag he likely would not have contacted the glove and if he did it would have been a legal move.  As the rule is written, it's the correct call regardless if you like or agree with the rule as written or who you want to win the game.

It wasn't a running lane violation unless of course it was, in the umpires judgement. His judgment was poor.

To qualify as a running lane violation the runner had to have interfered with the play; he absolutely did not. Turner was nowhere near the path of the ball in flight and did not force the fielder to change the delivery of his throw or the path prior to him releasing the ball. That's like saying a second baseman's throw to first would have been impacted by Turner not being in the running lane!

Had it been a bunt fielded in front of home plate then it could have been a violation. Judgement call of course. In the bunt example, had the fielder (let's use the catcher as an example) dropped the ball before delivering it to first and the runner beat the throw it would be poor judgement to rule it a running lane violation. Unless of course the umpire judged the runners path to first caused the fielder to drop the ball before his throw. Again, that would also be poor judgment!

It was an interference call, a judgement call as you indicate, one that would not have been made had the runner's path been consistent with the rules governing such calls specific to the 1st base line.  There is a reason for the running lane, to avoid such issues.  There is also a reason it starts well down the line, to allow runner's ample time to adjust their path to get into the running lane.  The fact that Turner's last step with his left foot was in the grass means he was well into fair territory at the bag and he obviously made contact with the glove, knocking it off.  Pretty much the definition of interference as the rules are written specific to 1st base.  It might not have been a running lane violation but being in the lane would have obviated the interference call.  Don't want to get called, run in the lane or at least somewhat close to it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Turner had no impact whatsoever in how the ball was fielded, how and where it was thrown, or where it was caught. Therefore you are missing half of the requirement for a running lane violation.

Using your terminology every multi-base hit is a running lane violation since runners are nowhere near the running lane (perhaps carrying a bat to 1st should also be a running lane violation).

A fielder's glove comes into contact with a runner all the time. Plus the contact in this case occurred ON THE BAG while Turner's left foot impacted the CENTER OF THE BAG. Is a runner standing on 1st base violating the running lane?

Regarding the rule: i know it isn't cool but 1b  collusions are quite dangerous, would it maybe make sense to use a double base like in softball? 

ABSORBER posted:

22and25 posted:

ABSORBER posted:

22and25 posted:

I think some of you are ignoring the path Turner was on before taking the definitive step to the bag.  His left foot was in the grass the last time it touched before contacting the base.  It was also in the grass the 5 times it contacted the ground before that as well.  He was basically cutting across the 1st baseman back to the bag when he made that definitive step so many are hanging their argument on.  It was while cutting from the grass to the bag that contact with the glove was made.  He obstructed the ability to make the play with his path to the bag which is why the rule is in place.  Had he been in the designated running lane and veered to the bag he likely would not have contacted the glove and if he did it would have been a legal move.  As the rule is written, it's the correct call regardless if you like or agree with the rule as written or who you want to win the game.

It wasn't a running lane violation unless of course it was, in the umpires judgement. His judgment was poor.

To qualify as a running lane violation the runner had to have interfered with the play; he absolutely did not. Turner was nowhere near the path of the ball in flight and did not force the fielder to change the delivery of his throw or the path prior to him releasing the ball. That's like saying a second baseman's throw to first would have been impacted by Turner not being in the running lane!

Had it been a bunt fielded in front of home plate then it could have been a violation. Judgement call of course. In the bunt example, had the fielder (let's use the catcher as an example) dropped the ball before delivering it to first and the runner beat the throw it would be poor judgement to rule it a running lane violation. Unless of course the umpire judged the runners path to first caused the fielder to drop the ball before his throw. Again, that would also be poor judgment!

It was an interference call, a judgement call as you indicate, one that would not have been made had the runner's path been consistent with the rules governing such calls specific to the 1st base line.  There is a reason for the running lane, to avoid such issues.  There is also a reason it starts well down the line, to allow runner's ample time to adjust their path to get into the running lane.  The fact that Turner's last step with his left foot was in the grass means he was well into fair territory at the bag and he obviously made contact with the glove, knocking it off.  Pretty much the definition of interference as the rules are written specific to 1st base.  It might not have been a running lane violation but being in the lane would have obviated the interference call.  Don't want to get called, run in the lane or at least somewhat close to it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Turner had no impact whatsoever in how the ball was fielded, how and where it was thrown, or where it was caught. Therefore you are missing half of the requirement for a running lane violation.

Using your terminology every multi-base hit is a running lane violation since runners are nowhere near the running lane (perhaps carrying a bat to 1st should also be a running lane violation).

A fielder's glove comes into contact with a runner all the time. Plus the contact in this case occurred ON THE BAG while Turner's left foot impacted the CENTER OF THE BAG. Is a runner standing on 1st base violating the running lane?

Yes, we can agree to disagree.  Your points about extra base hits and carrying bats on a HR are going to the absurd to try to support your argument, neither of those situations involve a play at 1st base.  As I walk away I will just leave this here again:

"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." 

Turner did just the opposite,  he ran the entire way completely in the field of play and with his last step veered out to get to the bag and in the process interfered with the catch.  Had he been in the lane and veered at the immediate vicinity of the bag as clearly spelled out in the rule he would not have interfered with the play.

Dominik85 posted:

Regarding the rule: i know it isn't cool but 1b  collusions are quite dangerous, would it maybe make sense to use a double base like in softball? 

 

Won't be a double base, but I am hearing the bases themselves will be bigger next year. Hoping that's true. Second base would be 2=3" closer to first and first base would be that much closer to second. One newspaper commented that base stealing may return to being in "vogue" again.  Could help put more interest in the game to mix with all the HRs, Ks and shifts. Just my opinion. Loved how the Nats manufactured their first run last night. If Nats win, it means their Big 2 starters were better than Houston's #1& #2.

ABSORBER posted:

We'll have to agree to disagree. Turner had no impact whatsoever in how the ball was fielded, how and where it was thrown, or where it was caught. Therefore you are missing half of the requirement for a running lane violation.

Using your terminology every multi-base hit is a running lane violation since runners are nowhere near the running lane (perhaps carrying a bat to 1st should also be a running lane violation).

5.09(a)(11) is under the section for Making an Out - Retiring the Batter. It's specific to the ball "being fielded to first base", so doesn't pertain to balls hit out of the infield.

(11) 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; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;

The umpires judgement was that Turner's path contributed to the interference. If his last step before the bag was on the line, maybe his butt is 6" further toward foul territory and it misses Gurriel's mitt. I doubt it, but I don't think it's a terrible call given the way the rule is written. But I also think the rule needs to be changed... maybe allow the runner the area directly over the bag.

Is the running lane rule, however you read it, ever enforced unless a runner’s path to the base actually affects the throw or its receipt?  Turner did neither while running to the bag—he was on the base when the throw hit him. You don’t suddenly decide on a new (at best) reading of the rules when there is a one-run lead in the late innings of game 6 of the World Series.

I agree with the comment above that the umpire reacted because the 1B’s glove came off.  The ball was hit down the third base line—absolutely not the situation the rule was written for. If Gurriel had set up with his right foot on the bag and his glove extended toward the fielder, then the only issue would be whether Turner beats the throw. 

And if MLB is really going to read the rule book this way from now on, then it almost has to use a double-wide base. Otherwise right-handed batters were just saddled with an even larger disadvantage when running to first. The lane exists for weak grounders on the right side of the infield and dropped third strikes—for plays on balls anywhere else, there is no more need for it than there would be for special running lanes at any other base.  If a 1b tried to receive a throw with his glove held chest-high over the middle of the bag, then the fielder has every right to run through it—and the resulting collision of runner with glove would look the same whether or not the runner used the lane to the right of the baseline. Turner’s path to the base did not affect the play. 

Reminds me of the George Brett pine tar incident: arguably a violation of the letter of the rules, but didn’t actually affect play and the player had no reason to expect the rule to be enforced in that fashion. 

Nobody is debating the definition of running lane. We are simply debating the umpires judgment:

(11) 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; except that he
may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or
inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder
attempting to field a batted ball;

Turner reached first at the exact moment the ball was caught. In fact, the first baseman's glove swept into Turner (who was on the base at the time) as a result of receiving a poor throw from 3rd.

It's simply a matter of poor judgment.

By the way, my comment on carrying the bat to first was in jest. Even though it appears it's OK while the runner, in the act of stepping on first, is out because of he made contact with the glove--which happens ALL THE TIME with errant throws to first from all over the infield. Do you think anybody is paying attention to the running lane when the SS makes a bad throw?

I don't care about the Turner interference call.  I do care about the shitty umpiring job behind home plate this entire World Series.   How these guys keep their jobs is a mystery to me.

Looking forward to a great Game 7 with Max on the mound

fenwaysouth posted:

I don't care about the Turner interference call.  I do care about the shitty umpiring job behind home plate this entire World Series.   How these guys keep their jobs is a mystery to me.

Looking forward to a great Game 7 with Max on the mound

 

On this point I very much agree.   The umping behind the plate has been the worst I've seen in the WS in years.  For goodness sake, it's the World Series with supposedly the two best teams in baseball.   Surely, they would send the best Umpire crew.   Evidently they picked the most mediocre crew they could find.  It's making the argument for electronically called balls/strikes stronger - not that I necessarily endorse this.

Anyone notice this is the first WS where the visiting team has won all the games?

Looking forward to seeing Max take the mound.  Should be a good game.

CBS Sports ... Aj Hinch says umpires for call wrong

Before the start of Wednesday night's Game 7, Astros manager AJ Hinch told reporters that he believes MLB got the call wrong, and instead, it was just a bad throw from Peacock. Hinch added that he believed Turner did not interfere. 

I generally liked the plate calling. A few bad calls but I liked they generally called a tight zone making it a little tougher on the pitchers. This means more offensive action.

If there is robo ump one day I would like them to shrink the official zone a ball down and a ball up, imo this would make for a better game considering how good those pitchers are.

I think the catchers are doing a disservice to their pitchers... so much glove movement on borderline pitches, sometimes 12" or more, they are losing calls.  I can't tell if it's on purpose (must be) or they aren't very good at framing (can't be the case?).  If it's intentional I can't imagine why...

Scherzer is all over the place with the command today, not easy to frame that when you don't know where it is going.

Astros dominating the game with a lot or traffic while nats haven't hit anything hard except that soto hit. Only 1 run lead for the stros though so they better capitalize on some of the runners so the nats don't get a chance to tie it with a swing.

Dominik85 posted:

Scherzer is all over the place with the command today, not easy to frame that when you don't know where it is going.

Astros dominating the game with a lot or traffic while nats haven't hit anything hard except that soto hit. Only 1 run lead for the stros though so they better capitalize on some of the runners so the nats don't get a chance to tie it with a swing.

Common man, this is bad... Greinke is throwing 78 and Chirinos is all over the place.  Now they pull Greinke because of it...

10:30pm

Congrats to the nats. Astros had plenty chances in the first 4-5  innings but didn't capitalize enough on them.

I liked that the umps generally called a tight zone and not a lot of borderline calls were called in favor of the pitchers. Sure a few bad ring ups like the correa call last night but generally hitters could take close misses without fearing it was called and they did, both teams were extremely disciplined and chased very few pitches which made it tougher to those super aces in conjunction with the tight zone.

I wonder if that was a directive by mlb because they didn't want the 6 ace starters to dominate the series and instead wanted more offensive action.

I understand some don't like that but mostly the umps called like that on both sides albeit it felt a little more calls went the Astros way although this might be because they were even more patient.

Some bad strike 3s of course but overall very few backwards Ks in the series. This was pretty good to watch, pitchers had to really work for strikes and hitters made it tough on them by not chasing breaking stuff out of the zone much.

Dominik85 posted:

Congrats to the nats. Astros had plenty chances in the first 4-5  innings but didn't capitalize enough on them.

Lots of tough/questionable managerial calls late in the game.  Greinke certainly looked like he was throwing well enough to stay in for the inning.  But the game was lost earlier.  At one point there was a graphic that 10 runners had been LOB and I turned to my son and said that that stat reminded me of a missed PAT in football, seems inconsequential at the time but it will be meaningful later.  Alas.  Congrats to the Nats, I had no dog in the hunt but found myself pulling for them. Always fun to witness history

Maybe the team with the best record should ask to start the World Series away next year?