Keon Broxton acquired and more (DFA Broxton- Claimed by Mariners))

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Sessh said:

That's fair. The thing is there was no interference on the play. Broxton's running line did not affect the outcome of the play. The bad throw did. In order to call interference, there has to actually be interference. Generally speaking, runners are allowed to run outside the baseline all they want UNLESS doing so interferes with a throw (ball hits the runner going to first while he's out of the baseline) or he's trying to evade a tag or something. Otherwise, running outside the baseline is not a rule violation. My issue is that there was no interference on the play. Even if Broxton is in the baseline here, it doesn't change the fact that the throw was high and an out wouldn't be recorded.

This is a common misconception.  The runner doesn't have to be hit by the throw for it to be interference, although it makes the call more contentious if it doesn't and the umpire's judgment is put to the test more if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  If the runner interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses the defensive player who is taking the throw at first base, it is interference.  On this play, I'd agree with the umpire that there was interference, as the runners path obstructs, hinders, and impedes the fielder's attempt to catch the ball, as I see it.  Totally disagree with your assertion that it was a "bad throw" as it seems very clear that the fielder could catch the ball without leaving the base if the runner wasn't impeding his view and effort.  Unfortunate for the Orioles, but it sure looks like a proper call to me.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

This is a common misconception.  The runner doesn't have to be hit by the throw for it to be interference, although it makes the call more contentious if it doesn't and the umpire's judgment is put to the test more if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  If the runner interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses the defensive player who is taking the throw at first base, it is interference.  On this play, I'd agree with the umpire that there was interference, as the runners path obstructs, hinders, and impedes the fielder's attempt to catch the ball, as I see it.  Totally disagree with your assertion that it was a "bad throw" as it seems very clear that the fielder could catch the ball without leaving the base if the runner wasn't impeding his view and effort.  Unfortunate for the Orioles, but it sure looks like a proper call to me.

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

This is a common misconception.  The runner doesn't have to be hit by the throw for it to be interference, although it makes the call more contentious if it doesn't and the umpire's judgment is put to the test more if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  If the runner interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses the defensive player who is taking the throw at first base, it is interference.  On this play, I'd agree with the umpire that there was interference, as the runners path obstructs, hinders, and impedes the fielder's attempt to catch the ball, as I see it.  Totally disagree with your assertion that it was a "bad throw" as it seems very clear that the fielder could catch the ball without leaving the base if the runner wasn't impeding his view and effort.  Unfortunate for the Orioles, but it sure looks like a proper call to me.

Okay, but Chavis did catch the ball. He had to come off the base to catch it because it was a high throw and not because of Broxton. It was certainly a bad throw. The ball was caught to the right of Broxton's head and slightly above. That's a bad throw any way you look at it. Chavis is only 5'10, so the high throw took him off the base. I understand what you're saying, but Broxton's line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. The throw was made, the ball was caught, it was a bad throw that took Chavis off the bag. I agree with everything you said above except that it applied to this play. The runner did not impede Chavis's view at all or his ability to catch the ball which he did.

Anyway, I think this has been beaten into the ground sufficiently. We will agree to disagree.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Okay, but Chavis did catch the ball. He had to come off the base to catch it because it was a high throw and not because of Broxton. It was certainly a bad throw. The ball was caught to the right of Broxton's head and slightly above. That's a bad throw any way you look at it. Chavis is only 5'10, so the high throw took him off the base. I understand what you're saying, but Broxton's line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. The throw was made, the ball was caught, it was a bad throw that took Chavis off the bag. I agree with everything you said above except that it applied to this play. The runner did not impede Chavis's view at all or his ability to catch the ball which he did.

Anyway, I think this has been beaten into the ground sufficiently. We will agree to disagree.

First, I didn't see the play and I'm only going by the pictures above.  Based on the pictures, I'm not sure how the throw and catch happened as you say.  If the fielder left the base after the third picture, I can only guess that it would have been to avoid the impending collision with the runner bearing down with his entire body in fair territory.

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

First, I didn't see the play and I'm only going by the pictures above.  Based on the pictures, I'm not sure how the throw and catch happened as you say.  If the fielder left the base after the third picture, I can only guess that it would have been to avoid the impending collision with the runner bearing down with his entire body in fair territory.

Ok, so the play in question is on this page at the bottom right corner of the video blocks. The throw is so far into the baseline it's almost in foul territory and is a little high. Chavis jumps to catch it and is off the base when he catches the ball. It's a terrible throw, but caught cleanly and clearly thrown well into the baseline and may have been caught just over the line into foul territory. Chavis had to reach far to get it and had to leave his feet to do so. Anyway, I think I emptied the tank on this topic. lol My opinion is only reinforced after watching the replay again.

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/red-sox-vs-orioles/2019/06/16/564967#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=564967

[Number5]

43 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Ok, so the play in question is on this page at the bottom right corner of the video blocks. The throw is so far into the baseline it's almost in foul territory and is a little high. Chavis jumps to catch it and is off the base when he catches the ball. It's a terrible throw, but caught cleanly and clearly thrown well into the baseline and may have been caught just over the line into foul territory. Chavis had to reach far to get it and had to leave his feet to do so. Anyway, I think I emptied the tank on this topic. lol My opinion is only reinforced after watching the replay again.

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/red-sox-vs-orioles/2019/06/16/564967#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=564967

Thank you for posting the video.  I have to say, the three stills had the outcome looking different than the video did.  The throw did take the fielder up and off the base, so in that case I would agree with you that there was no interference.  The direction of the throw was OK in that he wasn't pulled off the base side-to-side, but the height was bad.  He would have had to jump to catch the ball, regardless of the runner.  Interesting that they said that it wasn't reviewable because the interference happened before the base.  I would have protested the game right there  if I were the Orioles on the grounds that his jump to catch the ball wasn't caused by the runner, but rather the throw.  No interference, therefore a reviewable play.  Interestingly, the runner was not tagged, as the glove was clearly a few inches from the helmet when the runner touch first base.  Also, the first base umpire clearly called the runner out on the play, so the replay would also be to reverse his call, as well as the home plate umpire's interference call.

[OFFNY]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

Ok, so the play in question is on this page at the bottom right corner of the video blocks. The throw is so far into the baseline it's almost in foul territory and is a little high. Chavis jumps to catch it and is off the base when he catches the ball. It's a terrible throw, but caught cleanly and clearly thrown well into the baseline and may have been caught just over the line into foul territory. Chavis had to reach far to get it and had to leave his feet to do so. Anyway, I think I emptied the tank on this topic. lol My opinion is only reinforced after watching the replay again.

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/red-sox-vs-orioles/2019/06/16/564967#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=564967

o

 

This is the problem that I have with the rule. That play looked fair on Broxton's part, but Broxton clearly DID NOT use the runner's lane ........ in fact, he wasn't even close to using the runner's lane. He was well inside of it, but seeing the play both while it happened AND on the replay, it doesn't look like he did anything egregiously wrong in terms of interfwering with the play  ........ but he WAS egregiously inside of the runner's lane, so technically it was interference. Once he reached the runner's lane on his way to 1st base, Broxton took 6 steps to reach the bag, and on all 5 steps (prior to the one in which he touched the base,) he was well inside the runner's lane.

 

The umpires were correct in their interpretation of the rule ........ the rule itself (and the baserunner's ability to abide by it while running full speed out of the right-handed batter's box) is extremely questionable.

 

o

[Number5]

8 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

This is the problem that I have with the rule. That play looked fair on Broxton's part, but Broxton clearly DID NOT use the runner's lane ........ in fact, he wasn't even close to using the runner's lane. He was well inside of it, but seeing the play both while it happened AND on the replay, it doesn't look like he did anything egregiously wrong in terms of interfwering with the play  ........ but he WAS egregiously inside of the runner's lane, so technically it was interference. Once he reached the runner's lane on his way to 1st base, Broxton took 6 steps to reach the bag, and on all 5 steps (prior to the one in which he touched the base,) he was well inside the runner's lane.

 

The umpires were correct in their interpretation of the rule ........ the rule itself (and the baserunner's ability to abide by it while running full speed out of the right-handed batter's box) is extremely questionable.

 

o

No, running out of the runners lane, in and of itself, is not interference.  There must be interference on the play, and after seeing the video, I now agree with Sessh that there wasn't.  The high throw, not the runner, took the fielder up and off the base.  The plate umpire was incorrect, IMO.  It is rare to see an interference call on such a play in which the throw and catch were completed and the fielder wasn't forced off the base by the runner.  Where's the interference?

[OFFNY]

28 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No, running out of the runners lane, in and of itself, is not interference.  There must be interference on the play, and after seeing the video, I now agree with Sessh that there wasn't.  The high throw, not the runner, took the fielder up and off the base.  The plate umpire was incorrect, IMO.  It is rare to see an interference call on such a play in which the throw and catch were completed and the fielder wasn't forced off the base by the runner.  Where's the interference?

o

 

Fine. There was no interference on that play, because Broxton did not interfere with the throw.

But what was Broxton doing running so far inside of the lane, if it's an easy rule to abide by?

 

Your contention is that it is very easy and quite possible for right-handed batters to use the lane. Broxton's actions on this play belie that claim. According to the rule that you defend, Broxton's base-running on this bunt was atrocious ........ the fact that he did not interfere with the throw was circumstance/coincidental, not Broxton abiding by the rule.

 

o

[Number5]

18 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Fine. There was no interference on that play, because Broxton did not interfere with the throw.

But what the hell was Broxton doing running so far inside of the lane, if it's such an easy rule to abide by, as you claim ???

 

Your contention is that it is very easy and quite possible for right-handed batters to use the lane. Broxton's actions on this play belie that claim. According to the rule that you vehemently defend, Broxton's base-running on this bunt was atrocious ........ the fact that he did not interfere with the throw was circumstance/coincidental, not Broxton abiding by the rule.

 

o

Broxton screwed up.  You very rarely see a guy that far out of the runners lane on that type of play.  That probably led to the interference call because he was so far into fair territory.  The umpire saw he was so far into fair territory and was pre-set to call interference, missing the fact that the throw and catch were completed without any impediment by the runner.  The fielder left the base to catch the high throw, not due to anything the runner did, IMO.

[OFFNY]

17 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

Broxton screwed up.  You very rarely see a guy that far out of the runners lane on that type of play.  That probably led to the interference call because he was so far into fair territory.  The umpire saw he was so far into fair territory and was pre-set to call interference, missing the fact that the throw and catch were completed without any impediment by the runner.  The fielder left the base to catch the high throw, not due to anything the runner did, IMO.

 

o

 

It was indeed more egregious than most ........ Broxton appeared to be very watchful and overly concerned with what the Red Sox fielder (the pitcher) was going to do with the ball, which caused him to stray waaaay onto the field of play in his first 5 steps out of the box. He was a good 3 or 4 feet inside the line almost 1/3 of the way down the line. I see many right-handed batters a good foot or so inside the line at that point on similar plays, but not that far. But you're correct about it being a bad call, because it did not interfere with the throw. If the players are expected to know the rule, then the umpires should certainly know it.

 

o

[Number5]

10 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

It was indeed more egregious than most ........ Broxton appeared to be very watchful and overly concerned with what the Red Sox fielder (the pitcher) was going to do with the ball, which caused him to stray waaaay onto the field of play in his first 5 steps out of the box. He was a good 3 or 4 feet inside the line almost 1/3 of the way down the line. I see many right-handed batters a good foot or so inside the line at that point on similar plays, but not that far. But you're correct about it being a bad call, because it did not interfere with the throw. If the players are expected to know the rule, then the umpires should certainly know it.

 

o

Absolutely!  Umpire calls like interference, obstruction, and balk should only be made when certain.  If there is a doubt, no call is generally the way to go.  On that type of play, the only way I can see calling interference if the throw and catch are completed would be if I was certain that the only reason the fielder took his foot off the base was fear that the runner bearing down in fair territory was about to collide with him.

[Sessh]

15 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

This is the problem that I have with the rule. That play looked fair on Broxton's part, but Broxton clearly DID NOT use the runner's lane ........ in fact, he wasn't even close to using the runner's lane. He was well inside of it, but seeing the play both while it happened AND on the replay, it doesn't look like he did anything egregiously wrong in terms of interfwering with the play  ........ but he WAS egregiously inside of the runner's lane, so technically it was interference. Once he reached the runner's lane on his way to 1st base, Broxton took 6 steps to reach the bag, and on all 5 steps (prior to the one in which he touched the base,) he was well inside the runner's lane.

 

The umpires were correct in their interpretation of the rule ........ the rule itself (and the baserunner's ability to abide by it while running full speed out of the right-handed batter's box) is extremely questionable.

 

o

Yes, you're right that he clearly did not use the runner's lane and yes, he didn't do anything egregious to interfere which is why I think it was a bad call. The quickest route from the RH batter's box to first base is as the crow flies and it's already a longer run for a righty to first. The angle is more favorable for a lefty and the distance is shorter, so a righty has to do course correction on the way to first which costs more time. Even half a second could be the difference between safe and out. I share your criticisms of the rule in general and in this case, it's certainly a bad call because there was no clear interference on Broxton's part despite how far he was out of the baseline. He still shouldn't have run so far inside the runner's lane, but an interference call there was not justified. It's certainly a messy rule.

I just think there needs to be clear evidence of interference before you make a call like that especially when it will cost the team a run. Maybe the rule needs to be made less vague and say that the ball has to hit the runner during the throw or the runner has to actually make contact with the first baseman or his glove while also running outside the runner's lane in order for it to be called. I think the circumstances for enforcing this rule should be more specific and violation of the rule has to be clear. In this situation, even if Broxton is in the runner's lane, it changes nothing. The ball probably hits him in the back of the head or Chavis clotheslines him in the face trying to catch the ball and both almost happened anyway. The only thing that he clearly did was run outside the runner's lane which is not a rule violation.

 

[OFFNY]

o

 

(vs. MARINERS, 6/22)

 

Broxton made back-to-back outstanding defensive plays in the 4th inning to help his buddy, Andrew Casher.

 

o

[Matt Bennett]

When Stewart returns from IL, is Broxton DFA’d? I think we’ve seen enough. Let Wilkerson/Santander man CF. Stewart has nothing left to prove in AAA.