Garver's Game 2 Single

[cboemmeljr]

Just wondering why Mitch Garver's single in the second inning of ALDS game 2 isn't getting much discussion by the "talking heads"?  Other than not knocking Mountcastle's glove out it looked eerily similar to Trea Turner's out call in the WS.  Both runners ran between the grass and the baseline (on the left of the baseline).  Garver did, in my opinion, interfere with the throw.  Thoughts?

[Aristotelian]

Yeah, the announcers called it a lollipop throw but noted that Grayson had to get the throw over the runner. I haven't looked closely at the replay to see how far on the grass he was but that kind of play is exactly why the rule is there. Would that have been a challengeable play? 

[kaj21206]

If Rodriguez throws right into the runner's back, does he get an interference call?  It may have been the best choice.

[Spy Fox]

I'm not sure if the rule strictly mentions a collision, but do they ever make that interference call if there was no contact between the runner and the ball/fielder? 

I think they would have had a chance at interference if Grayson's throw had hit him.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, kaj21206 said:

If Rodriguez throws right into the runner's back, does he get an interference call?  It may have been the best choice.

I wax at the game and didn’t notice anything unusual in how Garver ran to 1B, but I wasn’t looking for it and didn’t have the benefit of replay.  The runner 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; 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.”

“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.”

[CP0861]

As soon as GRod fielded the ball, I thought "hit him..hit him...HIT HIM"

I was in the UD down the 1st base line and had a great view. Garver was absolutely in fair territory....basically the entire way to 1st.

It's a tough, quick play, but in that moment, someone has to be communicating that - especially with a run coming in. As soon as he slowed his throw, he had no chance. Might as well hit him and hope to get the call.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[CP0861]

"If the batter/runner is out of the lane and the play is completed by the defense, no interference is called unless the batter/runner interferes with the 1B making a throw to another base.

Since GRod lobbed the throw and the play was completed, Garver didn't technically interfere with the catch.

If GRod had hit him, he would absolutely have been out and the runner on 3rd goes back to 3rd.

Basically, if there's ANY doubt or chance the runner is out of the lane, you have to hit the runner or the 1st baseman needs to create contact and sell the interference. And if you watch those plays, if the batter is right handed and bunts or hits a dribbler, they're almost always out of the lane like Garver was. If you're in the RH box and run STRAIGHT to the bag, you're going to be out of the lane most of the time (but only called out if the play isn't finished).

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[cboemmeljr]

GARVER'S HIT

 

TURNER'S HIT

[baltfan]

Can someone explain to me why Mountcastle didn't just put the glove in foul territory to create an easy angle?

[CP0861]

31 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Can someone explain to me why Mountcastle didn't just put the glove in foul territory to create an easy angle?

Normally, there's no reason for a 1b to do that. It also opens up the 1b for defensive interference. Mountcastle should've stood his ground better, in my worthless opinion.

Mountcastle saw it unfold, he reacted and set up wide early.  If anything he should've gotten smaller. He should've put his right foot on the bag (which also closes some distance and is better for bang/bang plays) and reached straight down the line towards GRod. Instead, he set up (too) wide very early and allowed Garver to occupy that space. If you look at the replay, Garver even looked back at GRod as he fielded the ball and Garver DEFINITELY intentionally drifted left in his last few steps. Moutncastle gave him that space. If Mountcastle gets small there (instead of a big wide target to the side) the ball is more likely to hit Garver and/or there's a higher chance of contact (and not completing the play).

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[Yossarian]

29 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Can someone explain to me why Mountcastle didn't just put the glove in foul territory to create an easy angle?

I don't think that would have helped.   Rodriguez would have still had to make another step toward the dugout to clear a throwing lane and he didn't have time to do that.   The correct play would have been to throw the ball into Garver's back and force the umps to make a call.   This is the very reason they paint the second line halfway down the first base line - this exact situation.  

[NashLumber]

19 minutes ago, Yossarian said:

I don't think that would have helped.   Rodriguez would have still had to make another step toward the dugout to clear a throwing lane and he didn't have time to do that.   The correct play would have been to throw the ball into Garver's back and force the umps to make a call.   This is the very reason they paint the second line halfway down the first base line - this exact situation.  

Sadly, even that doesn't work sometimes. And the Orioles were on the short end of the stick then, too.  

 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, cboemmeljr said:

GARVER'S HIT

 

TURNER'S HIT

I don't know, it's very close. He is right on the line pretty much the whole trip. If you're on the line does that count as outside the lane? He drifts slightly to his left into fair territory at the end, but you have to do that because that's where the bag is. The Turner example is much worse as he is clearly outside the line the whole way, and also makes contact with the 1B glove.

[CP0861]

25 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I don't know, it's very close. He is right on the line pretty much the whole trip. If you're on the line does that count as outside the lane? He drifts slightly to his left into fair territory at the end, but you have to do that because that's where the bag is. The Turner example is much worse as he is clearly outside the line the whole way, and also makes contact with the 1B glove.

The last 45 feet are when it matters...where the dual line is. You can step, stride, reach outside the lane in the vicinity of the bag (to touch the bag), but he was inside fair territory with his last steps. If the ball hits him where he was, he's out and the runner goes back to third.

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[Aristotelian]

28 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

The last 45 feet are when it matters...where the dual line is. You can step, stride, reach outside the lane in the vicinity of the bag (to touch the bag), but he was inside fair territory with his last steps. If the ball hits him where he was, he's out and the runner goes back to third.

Aren't his last steps in the vicinity of the bag? If running on the line is interference I agree he is out, at least technically. Usually you see it called when the runner is all the way on the grass. He may be out but the Garver play is closer and more subtle than Trea's.

I also noted it appeared they did not review Trea's, the manager just went ballistic, so I assume it's not reviewable.