2019 World Series (ASTROS vs. NATIONALS)

[Number5]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

Once again what is the running lane there for? Decoration? 

It was a bad luck play. That play probably only happens to each team a couple of times a year. He ran inside the line. He was never in the lane and it was unfortunate for the Nats but it is the rule.  

No, it isn't.  This is a very misunderstood rule.  A runner is never out merely for running out of the lane.  The lane only comes into play when a throw is coming from behind the runner, which it was in this case.  Having met that criterion, there is more to it.  The runner is entitled to move into fair territory in order to step on the base.  There must be a good throw in order for interference to be called and there must actually be an interference while the runner is out of the runners lane.  In this case it sure looks like the runner beat the throw and would have been in exactly the same place at the time of the play in question at first whether he had previously been in the running lane or not.  The picture above seems to show exactly that - that the runner clearly beat the throw.  To call interference when the play in question occurred as or after the runner is touching first base is not in accordance with the rule.

I am also confused by Torre's comment that a judgment call is not reviewable.  Seems to me that just about every play that is reviewed is a judgment call.  I know that a game cannot be protested over a judgment call, but that is completely different than saying a play involving a judgment call is not reviewable.  It sure seems like Torre is wrong about that and the play should have been reviewed.  If the replay shows that the runner was safe at the base irrespective of being previously out of the running lane and that any possible "interference" occurred as the runner was legally touching the base, which seems fairly obvious to me, then the call should have been overturned.

[Number5]

40 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

It's 3' lane that's on both sides of the bag.  By the letter of the rule, he was out, but that's not why they made the call.  They called it because of the glove at the very end of the play.   To  make it in an elimination game of the World Series is MLB putting their thumb on the scale in a Series with several bad calls behind the plate..  Rendon took care of business   Fix the rule.  

No, it isn't.  The runners lane is a 3 foot lane on the fouls side of the first base line.  The bag is on the fair side.  The runner must necessarily move into fair territory for his last step to the bag.

[TonySoprano]

7 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No, it isn't.  The runners lane is a 3 foot lane on the fouls side of the first base line.  The bag is on the fair side.  The runner must necessarily move into fair territory for his last step to the bag.

He's allowed to run inside the line until the last 45' which is why I said, by the rule, he was out.   That's what I was trying to say.

[eddie83]

20 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No, it isn't.  This is a very misunderstood rule.  A runner is never out merely for running out of the lane.  The lane only comes into play when a throw is coming from behind the runner, which it was in this case.  Having met that criterion, there is more to it.  The runner is entitled to move into fair territory in order to step on the base.  There must be a good throw in order for interference to be called and there must actually be an interference while the runner is out of the runners lane.  In this case it sure looks like the runner beat the throw and would have been in exactly the same place at the time of the play in question at first whether he had previously been in the running lane or not.  The picture above seems to show exactly that - that the runner clearly beat the throw.  To call interference when the play in question occurred as or after the runner is touching first base is not in accordance with the rule.

I am also confused by Torre's comment that a judgment call is not reviewable.  Seems to me that just about every play that is reviewed is a judgment call.  I know that a game cannot be protested over a judgment call, but that is completely different than saying a play involving a judgment call is not reviewable.  It sure seems like Torre is wrong about that and the play should have been reviewed.  If the replay shows that the runner was safe at the base irrespective of being previously out of the running lane and that any possible "interference" occurred as the runner was legally touching the base, which seems fairly obvious to me, then the call should have been overturned.

I know the rule. His glove came off. Was he suppose to catch it anyway? Turner ran inside the line, when you do that you aren’t protected. 

[Number5]

19 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

He's allowed to run inside the line until the last 45' which is why I said, by the rule, he was out.  

I don't think that is true.  As I said above, I don't believe that in this case he should have been called out.  The rule requires that a good throw be made and for there to be an interference occurring while the runner is out of the runners lane.  As he is touching first base he is, by rule, not required to be in the runners lane.  Again, because the play in question occurred as he was touching first base and he would have been exactly where he was whether he had previously been running within the runners lane or not, no interference occurred.  This is my opinion based on what I see.  If the umpire is saying that the contact and interference occurred prior to the last step (for which he is legally entitled to be in fair territory) that would be different and should certainly be a question that replay can answer.  Torre's assertion that judgment calls are not reviewable seems to be absurd.  Every close play that is reviewed is, obviously, a judgment call.

[Number5]

17 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I know the rule. His glove came off. Was he suppose to catch it anyway? Turner ran inside the line, when you do that you aren’t protected. 

A runner is never out because the fielder lost his glove.  He would only be out if he violated a rule.  No rule was violated in this case if rhe play in question occurred while he was legally touching first base.  Your assertion that a runner is out for running out of the runners lane is simply wrong.  An interference must occur while he is required to be in the lane and not there in order for an out to be called.  The runner is quite obviously legally entitled to be in fair territory as he steps on first.  There is no other way to say this to you.

[eddie83]

32 minutes ago, Number5 said:

A runner is never out because the fielder lost his glove.  He would only be out if he violated a rule.  No rule was violated in this case if rhe play in question occurred while he was legally touching first base.  Your assertion that a runner is out for running out of the runners lane is simply wrong.  An interference must occur while he is required to be in the lane and not there in order for an out to be called.  The runner is quite obviously legally entitled to be in fair territory as he steps on first.  There is no other way to say this to you.

My god, he violated the rule by not running in the running lane. Did you read the tweets I copied earlier? 

Once again what is the point of the runners lane if it has no meaning?  I think everyone understands if he gets to the bag later or earlier using the same path and he doesn’t impact his ability to catch the throw than interference is not called. 

[eddie83]

46 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I don't think that is true.  As I said above, I don't believe that in this case he should have been called out.  The rule requires that a good throw be made and for there to be an interference occurring while the runner is out of the runners lane.  As he is touching first base he is, by rule, not required to be in the runners lane.  Again, because the play in question occurred as he was touching first base and he would have been exactly where he was whether he had previously been running within the runners lane or not, no interference occurred.  This is my opinion based on what I see.  If the umpire is saying that the contact and interference occurred prior to the last step (for which he is legally entitled to be in fair territory) that would be different and should certainly be a question that replay can answer.  Torre's assertion that judgment calls are not reviewable seems to be absurd.  Every close play that is reviewed is, obviously, a judgment call.

Show me where it says a good throw on the rulebook? It was a catchable throw, it wasn’t 10 feet over his head. 

Judgement calls mean rule interpretation. A call at 1st safe/out isn’t a rule interpretation.  

[Number5]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Show me where it says a good throw on the rulebook? It was a catchable throw, it wasn’t 10 feet over his head. 

Judgement calls mean rule interpretation. A call at 1st safe/out isn’t a rule interpretation.  

You are quite wrong yet again.  You have it backwards.  A rules interpretation is protestable, a judgment call is not.  Safe or out at first base is a judgment call and not protestable.  Torre somehow confused the fact that a judgment call is not protestable with whether or not it is reviewable.

[eddie83]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

You are quite wrong yet again.  You have it backwards.  A rules interpretation is protestable, a judgment call is not.  Safe or out at first base is a judgment call and not protestable.  Torre somehow confused the fact that a judgment call is not protestable with whether or not it is reviewable.

You can’t protest a judgment call. 

You are correct here. I did word it wrong. 

I stand by everything else I said.....

[Number5]

15 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

My god, he violated the rule by not running in the running lane. Did you read the tweets I copied earlier? 

Once again what is the point of the runners lane if it has no meaning?  I think everyone understands if he gets to the bag later or earlier using the same path and he doesn’t impact his ability to catch the throw than interference is not called. 

You seem to have only a vague idea of what the rule is.  A runner is NEVER out merely for running out of the runners lane.  There must be an interference.  There must be a good throw, and the runner is entitled to enter fair territory in order to touch the base.  These are basic rules and that you question them makes it quite apparent that you haven't looked up the rule at all.

This might help you:

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/rule-week-runners-lane/

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

You seem to have only a vague idea of what the rule is.  A runner is NEVER out merely for running out of the runners lane.  There must be an interference.  There must be a good throw, and the runner is entitled to enter fair territory in order to touch the base.  These are basic rules and that you question them makes it quite apparent that you haven't looked up the rule at all.

This might help you:

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/rule-week-runners-lane/

I havent seen this much discussion since the home run call that should not have been a home run, back in 96.

[eddie83]

Just now, Number5 said:

You seem to have only a vague idea of what the rule is.  A runner is NEVER out merely for running out of the runners lane.  There must be an interference.  There must be a good throw, and the runner is entitled to enter fair territory in order to touch the base.  These are basic rules and that you question them makes it quite apparent that you haven't looked up the rule at all.

This might help you:

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/rule-week-runners-lane/

I have looked it up. I know the rules. People are using the same website to back up the ruling. 

That throw was a throw that Gurriel catches does he not? 

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I havent seen this much discussion since the home run call that should not have been a home run, back in 96.

Haha. I am having fun with this but I know it may look otherwise.  

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Haha. I am having fun with this but I know it may look otherwise.  

at least last nights call, regardless of right or wrong, did not change the outcome of the game, unlike back in 96.