It's marked right on the fieldAt what point in his run to first should he have been on, or to the right of (when looking at camera from behind him) the line in order to not be breaking the rule?
It's marked right on the fieldAt what point in his run to first should he have been on, or to the right of (when looking at camera from behind him) the line in order to not be breaking the rule?
Teams generally get cold and slump at the plate when facing him.Strasburg is a cyborg.
Verlander strangely can't get it done on the biggest stage. Handing out dingers like Halloween candy.
So the grass? But his being in the grass, for a stride or two, barely, didn't impact the throw/catch. Isn't that the rule? Honest question. He was called out because he interfered with the ability of the first baseman to catch the ball - so how did his foot 10 strides ago do that?It's marked right on the field
He sure settled down after the first. He was hit very hard in the first inning then almost nothing the rest of the way. Stud.Teams generally get cold and slump at the plate when facing him.
It’s weird.
The rule says explicitly by the time he's half way to first base he has to be on the right side of the line. He was still all the way in the grass on the left side of the line at that point.Again, I'm not a baseball guy. Where, and when, does Turner need to be in that lane? Immediately after hitting the ball? Once the ball has been thrown? When the 1st baseman is attempting to catch it? And where is that lane?
http://www.qcbaseball.com/rules/running-lane.aspxSo the grass? But his being in the grass, for a stride or two, barely, didn't impact the throw/catch. Isn't that the rule? Honest question. He was called out because he interfered with the ability of the first baseman to catch the ball - so how did his foot 10 strides ago do that?
Here is a still frame of his last step before the bag. Remember, the rule says by the time he's HALF WAY down the baseline he has to be between those two white lines.So the grass? But his being in the grass, for a stride or two, barely, didn't impact the throw/catch. Isn't that the rule? Honest question. He was called out because he interfered with the ability of the first baseman to catch the ball - so how did his foot 10 strides ago do that?
Ok, thanks for this. Was getting my left and right mixed up, as I'm thinking left/right from the overhead shot they kept playing over and over last night. So the runner actually needs to be on the foul side of the line the second half of his run. Not sure it makes sense, but at least I now know the rule - so thanks for that.http://www.qcbaseball.com/rules/running-lane.aspx
it's chalked in the field.
he was running on the infield side of the base the entire time. Per the rule, he needs to be in the running lane at the point where the lane starts. If there's no throw, or the ball doesn't hit him it doesn't really matter but when it affects the play it's interference. As I said above, I think it was the fact he ran the entire time outside the lane (in the field of play) that influenced the umps decision.
Thanks for this. Seems like it puts right handed batters at a pretty decent disadvantage. The follow thru of their swing is going to lead them to start from the left side of the line from the view of that picture. Halfway down the line they need to now be to the right of it.....to hit a bag that's placed to the left of it.Here is a still frame of his last step before the bag. Remember, the rule says by the time he's HALF WAY down the baseline he has to be between those two white lines.
runner interference
The purpose of the rule is to give the runner a running lane where they are protected from being called for interference on a throw coming from around the plate. If they are running in the proper lane and they get hit with the ball then there is no interference. While running where Turner was running does not give them that protection.Not a huge baseball fan, but a Nats fan so I'm watching the series with great interest (as I have with their entire playoff run.
So what was Turner suppose to do? At what point in his run to first should he have been on, or to the right of (when looking at camera from behind him) the line in order to not be breaking the rule? It's not in his interest to do anything other than a straight line from where he was when he finished his hit to the bag itself., which he appeared to do.
What's the purpose of the rule itself? The 1st baseman can't block the bag, and the runner has a free path to the bag itself. It was a bad throw that caused all this, so why should a bad throw result in the batter/runner being out?
The lane is marked by chalk. You will see it in every MLB game. It starts half way to 1st base and that is when the runner must be in that lane to be "safe" from interference. This only applies to plays that originate around home plate to give the runner a safety lane to avoid interference. It is the runner's responsibility to get into that lane by the 45' mark (which is where it starts).Again, I'm not a baseball guy. Where, and when, does Turner need to be in that lane? Immediately after hitting the ball? Once the ball has been thrown? When the 1st baseman is attempting to catch it? And where is that lane?
It is true that it is a bit of a disadvantage but the lane is there for the batter-runner's protection against being called for interference. By the letter of the law it is in his best interested to be in that lane so that he doesn't get called out if the throw is a bit off line (as is what happened last night). I believe that if he was in the proper running lane and then veered with his last step to the bag (as is allowed by the rule) that he would not have been called out. I think the main reason he was called out was because he was in fair territory the entire way to the bag hence veering to his right to hit the bag allowing him to be in the way of the throw - which I am certain he did on purpose. Play the gray area of the rule and hope it comes your way. Per the rule I think this was a fairly easy call and agree with how it was called.Thanks for this. Seems like it puts right handed batters at a pretty decent disadvantage. The follow thru of their swing is going to lead them to start from the left side of the line from the view of that picture. Halfway down the line they need to now be to the right of it.....to hit a bag that's placed to the left of it.
But also that shot shows that had the ball been throw more to the left (from this point of view) the runner wouldn't have impacted the throw or catch at all. Just feels weird that the placement of the throw (rather than it's timing) should impact the runner.
This is very well said and I have been using this same argument any time this comes up. Part of baseball has always been adjusting to the nuances of the strikezone game to game. The only thing any player asks is that it is called consistently for that game. Call a borderline pitch a strike in Inning 1 it needs to be called in inning 9 and vice versa. As long as that happens then the individualized strike zone is great and very much a part of game strategy.Todem said:There are multiple things.
First and foremost scouting plate umpires is a big part of baseball and understanding a particular umpires "zone" can be crucial to not making mistake pitches and pitching to their "pitchers" strikes instead of finding out during a game with 3 walks and 2 dingers later. It is part of the maze/chess match that is baseball. As a hitter you will understand far more what you can get away with taking vs what you need to fight off to prevent getting rung up. Knowing a guy has a low and outside strike....well I better make sure I jump on that first pitch fastball and not get behind because this pitcher as a back door slider that is killer and this ump loves to call it a strike one ball off the plate.
All that goes away with a robo ump. The game becomes......blech.
The art of the umpires calling games is as much a part of baseball as the players. Yes that is right. Human error is a part of life, sports and to me the more we try to eliminate that...the more we are dehumanizing the game. MLB umpires get 99% right. Even if they got 3-4% wrong that is amazing considering the speed of this game. Calling balls and strikes is a high level skill and I love seeing what an umpires zone is for that game. It is part of the fun not only as a fan.....but as someone who played ball into college.
If anyone here has played/coached (I have done both) baseball at a high level high school and beyond I dare to say you would hate to see robots calling games.
Interaction with the plate umpire, working a plate umpire as a coach, or a hitter or a catcher is also a huge part of the fun, charm and elegance of playing baseball.
I am actually a supporter of MLB's replay system. I think they have it right and do not need to change a thing. It is fast, and they get it right 99.7% of the time. The NFL is a shining example of what is wrong with replay and playing sports frame by frame on HD. It is an abortion what they have done to the NFL.
So with that. Leave the umpires alone. They do an incredible job (most of them). So if you have an umpire who is consistently inconsistent, remove them. There are hundreds of young umps who are ready to move to The Show.
Watching last night, I thought the first basement sold the interference. The first baseman's step is toward second base, setting up for a throw away from the baseline. When the throw came to his left, he's forced to reach back awkwardly and it seems like he throws his glove out there expecting it to get knocked off his hand.Thanks for this. Seems like it puts right handed batters at a pretty decent disadvantage. The follow thru of their swing is going to lead them to start from the left side of the line from the view of that picture. Halfway down the line they need to now be to the right of it.....to hit a bag that's placed to the left of it.
But also that shot shows that had the ball been throw more to the left (from this point of view) the runner wouldn't have impacted the throw or catch at all. Just feels weird that the placement of the throw (rather than it's timing) should impact the runner.
The rule says nothing about the throw. The responsibility is solely on the runner so if he is running in the safe lane provided he is not subject to interference. If he is running outside this safe space and he interferes with the ability to catch the ball he can be called out for interference. The throw is never mentioned and is not relevant to where the runner is running or if he is subject to interference (with respect to the throw being "good" or not).The relevant part of the rule states "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;"
"In so doing" suggests a need for cause and effect. Did Turner running outside the running lane cause the interference? I did not think so. Interference was caused by the bad throw coming into the lane that Turner needed to be in in order to touch the bag, not by the way that Turner ran.
There are no referees in baseball. They are umpires...…...sorry this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine...…..hahahaha. Same when people say the Nats scored 7 points last night. There are no points in baseball. They scored 7 runs...….hahahahhahaWatching last night, I thought the first basement sold the interference. The first baseman's step is toward second base, setting up for a throw away from the baseline. When the throw came to his left, he's forced to reach back awkwardly and it seems like he throws his glove out there expecting it to get knocked off his hand.
My take is that these guys are all so experienced with this situation, they are both playing the refs. The baserunner and first baseman both knew the ball was hit to a place where it would be a tight angle throw, and each did their best to take advantage of it. Turner is essentially daring the referee to make a hard call in a huge moment. In the end, I have no problem with the call. There's really no doubt Turner was inside the line and did not run a legal path to first base.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1189372600616656896
The exact opposite of the 1991 World Series.So first time home team lost six straight in a seven game series. Unbreakable record going to bet set tonight? 'Stros fan, but almost want to see history made.
https://www.mlb.com/news/world-series-road-teams-notching-early-wins
Sorry if it's a Honda, not following the thread, but this just fascinates me.
That example is way worse. I can't imagine anyone complaining about Bellinger being called out. The differences there are stark.Game 4 of last years world series had a very similar play in the 6th inning. They did not call Bellinger out.
0-7 in World Series starts. Very puzzling and Kershawish. JV did not look confidant at all last 2 outings.Strasburg is a cyborg.
Verlander strangely can't get it done on the biggest stage. Handing out dingers like Halloween candy.
Yes, all of the Astro backers and anybody that reads the rule. By rule the runner was not running in the proper lane and was therefore subject to being called out for interference if he interfered with the ability of the 1B to catch the ball. He interfered with that ability. It is the runner's responsibility to get into the running lane. Turner did not do this.The interference call last night was ridiculously wrong. If the umpire had NOT made the call, would a single person have brought it up?
But, in the regular season that make that call with regularity.
It's getting all this attention in this World Series for obvious reason, but runners cheat that line all the time to try and get away with it. Not saying I like it, because I think the rule is dumb.
But I actually think the umps called it properly here. Lucky for MLB Rendon saved their backs on this one.
They could, and probably should, have called him out.Game 4 of last years world series had a very similar play in the 6th inning. They did not call Bellinger out.
Hey now. He had a no decision once ... once.Strasburg is a cyborg.
Verlander strangely can't get it done on the biggest stage. Handing out dingers like Halloween candy.
People are just throwing out things like “ridiculously wrong”, etc. without explaining why.Yes, all of the Astro backers and anybody that reads the rule. By rule the runner was not running in the proper lane and was therefore subject to being called out for interference if he interfered with the ability of the 1B to catch the ball. He interfered with that ability. It is the runner's responsibility to get into the running lane. Turner did not do this.
It is a judgement call that could have been called the other way but by the definition of the rule he should have been called out.
ok, I think I change my mind. I disagree that it was the throw that ultimately caused this problem and that it still would not have been catchable had Turner been running in the correct lane. But, with the contact occurring and where Turner was running, it "forced" the umpire to make the interference call.The rule says nothing about the throw. The responsibility is solely on the runner so if he is running in the safe lane provided he is not subject to interference. If he is running outside this safe space and he interferes with the ability to catch the ball he can be called out for interference. The throw is never mentioned and is not relevant to where the runner is running or if he is subject to interference (with respect to the throw being "good" or not).
In last night's play the throw was catchable if not for Turner being in the way. He was not running in the lane provided therefore he interfered with the ability to catch the ball and should be called out.
This doesn't work when you are dealing with patient hitters that are seeing a guy twice in one week and have already seen this pitch. It works well in the regular season against most hitters that are in the midst of a long season. Pitching in the playoffs is difference because everything is amplified and tendencies are researched 100% more than in the regular season. You need to change your tendencies as well. In addition, he needed to make pitches that gave a look that it might be a strike....not a complete miss than you could tell from his hand wasn't going to be a strike. Some if it is poor execution as well. The pitch might not be the wrong pitch but the execution was not ideal.0-7 in World Series starts. Very puzzling and Kershawish. JV did not look confidant at all last 2 outings.
One thing that drives me crazy about Verlander is when he gets up 0-2, he throws that big curve that is nowhere near the zone that the hitter lays off on instead of putting the guy away. Then next thing you know it is 3-2 and he walks the guy. Did it twice in a row yesterday with 2 outs and added about 20 pitches to his count.
This becomes irrelevant once you have a rule that has a large variance in how and when it is called.Honestly after reading the rule and watching the replay it seems insane to me that anyone could argue it was a bad call. It was called exactly as the rule is written. If you don't want to get called for interference then don't run outside the lane. If you want to shave a quarter step off your run down the first base line by running outside the lane then you are risking getting called for interference if it looks like you may have gotten in the way. He took the risk and lost.
I was a "high level pitcher" and I would've loved a robo ump. Nothing more upsetting then throwing a perfect pitch that has been called a strike all game only for it to be called a ball on a 3-2 count.Todem said:If anyone here has played/coached (I have done both) baseball at a high level high school and beyond I dare to say you would hate to see robots calling games.
Yeah that is frustrating. But screw robo umps man.I was a "high level pitcher" and I would've loved a robo ump. Nothing more upsetting then throwing a perfect pitch that has been called a strike all game only for it to be called a ball on a 3-2 count.
This gets called a lot more often than someone going 37 in a 35 gets pulled over for speeding.This becomes irrelevant once you have a rule that has a large variance in how and when it is called.
It would be like arguing that by the letter of the law 37 miles an hour is speeding. Sure you are right. But you are also wrong.
Not sure I agree with that. "High level pitchers" are more likely to get calls from umps than some no-name.I was a "high level pitcher" and I would've loved a robo ump. Nothing more upsetting then throwing a perfect pitch that has been called a strike all game only for it to be called a ball on a 3-2 count.
For the purpose of this argument, "high level pitcher" was just meant to say someone who played high school or beyond. I played into college. And I've gone on record here many times saying I was not very good when compared to other pitchers on my team or at the college level. I didn't mean for it to come off as me saying I was a great pitcher, by any means.Not sure I agree with that. "High level pitchers" are more likely to get calls from umps than some no-name.
Dangit.For the purpose of this argument, "high level pitcher" was just meant to say someone who played high school or beyond. I played into college. And I've gone on record here many times saying I was not very good when compared to other pitchers on my team or at the college level. I didn't mean for it to come off as me saying I was a great pitcher, by any means.
What would you say that your fastball came in at in mph?For the purpose of this argument, "high level pitcher" was just meant to say someone who played high school or beyond. I played into college. And I've gone on record here many times saying I was not very good when compared to other pitchers on my team or at the college level. I didn't mean for it to come off as me saying I was a great pitcher, by any means.
I thought it was a horrible call at first. Then after reading the rule and watching the replay, then seeing the home plate umpire in perfect position even though it was rare the call was correct.This becomes irrelevant once you have a rule that has a large variance in how and when it is called.
It would be like arguing that by the letter of the law 37 miles an hour is speeding. Sure you are right. But you are also wrong.
I pitched and played OF in HS. I thought I was a flame thrower but in reality I was only hitting 84-85 with my best fastball. That is pretty good for HS but a scout won`t even look at anyone unless they are in the low 90s. I don`t think people realize how hard it is to add MPH to a fastball. Plus toss in the fact I could not throw strikes with my curve and I was a one trick pony. I am left handed and I beaned many a left handed batter with a curve that did not break.What would you say that your fastball came in at in mph?
You, of all people should be preaching the importance of pitching!
lol.... that's not what I was insinuating at all.... comment had nothing to do with you.... I meant that the truly "high-level" pitchers in MLB with proven track records of control are more likely to get beneficial calls. Glavine/Smoltz/Maddux made a living at it. They would get calls that no other pitchers would get. Works the same way for batters. A guy known to have a "great eye" (like Miggy) is less likely to get rung up on a close pitch than some schlep. A robo ump would ensure everyone is on the exact same level and I would think that would upset the "high level pitchers".For the purpose of this argument, "high level pitcher" was just meant to say someone who played high school or beyond. I played into college. And I've gone on record here many times saying I was not very good when compared to other pitchers on my team or at the college level. I didn't mean for it to come off as me saying I was a great pitcher, by any means.
I pitched in LL and a little after that. Went to one of those radar things they had set up in the ballpark last year in Cleveland. The hardest I could muster with all my strength and not even a legal windup was 61, I think. 84-85 is really way better than most could do, but yeah, not good enough to play in the show.I pitched and played OF in HS. I thought I was a flame thrower but in reality I was only hitting 84-85 with my best fastball. That is pretty good for HS but a scout won`t even look at anyone unless they are in the low 90s. I don`t think people realize how hard it is to add MPH to a fastball. Plus toss in the fact I could not throw strikes with my curve and I was a one trick pony. I am left handed and I beaned many a left handed batter with a curve that did not break.
I once read a quote "Great pitchers are born not made" Should be great "fastball" pitchers.
Man I remember facing a guy as a fresman in HS that could hit upper 80's and I was like why am I even bothering to stand here and flail my bat out at the ball.I pitched in LL and a little after that. Went to one of those radar things they had set up in the ballpark last year in Cleveland. The hardest I could muster with all my strength and not even a legal windup was 61, I think. 84-85 is really way better than most could do, but yeah, not good enough to play in the show.
I made a DI team as a walk on and was terrible. I bunted a ball off my face during batting practice and before the season started, I threw out my already fragile arm. I had an option to have surgery on it to fix it, but since I knew I was not going to go any further in my career, I elected to retire from the sport. After about a decade, I started going out and playing in softball leagues for fun as a replacement. I'd play the outfield and wow people with throws from the center field fence to home plate to nail a runner testing my arm. Of course, that would usually be the end of me throwing for the season.I want to hear more about The Sheik’s pitching career.
Yup. I'd also add that there are people out there who can throw in the 90's but can't throw a second pitch that comes out of their hand looking like a fastball. If you can throw 100mph, but your curve looks different coming out of your hand, that 100mph fastball is just going to leave the yard quicker when they crank it.I pitched and played OF in HS. I thought I was a flame thrower but in reality I was only hitting 84-85 with my best fastball. That is pretty good for HS but a scout won`t even look at anyone unless they are in the low 90s. I don`t think people realize how hard it is to add MPH to a fastball. Plus toss in the fact I could not throw strikes with my curve and I was a one trick pony. I am left handed and I beaned many a left handed batter with a curve that did not break.
I once read a quote "Great pitchers are born not made" Should be great "fastball" pitchers.
At my best, I was probably mid to just over mid 80's. Seeing the other guys throwing in the 90's felt like they were throwing 80mph faster than me. Again, my control and deception made up for my lack of speed. Although, once in college, neither of those things could have kept me from getting shelled routinely. I would have been great for a batter or two. But that's about it.What would you say that your fastball came in at in mph?
You, of all people should be preaching the importance of pitching!