Garver's Game 2 Single

[MCO'sFan]

1 hour ago, CP0861 said:

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).

Mountcastle set up correctly. The proper play for the 1B is to set up with the left foot on the bag and square to the fielder with both hands up. I think that if Grayson had hit him in the back it would have been called but I've seen worse not called. The better play would have been for Grayson to shuffle to his left to create a throwing lane and then make a strong throw to first. If he had done that, nothing else would have mattered. 

[CP0861]

 

27 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

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.

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/the-nfhs-runners-lane-rule-umpires-guide/

"When considering this rule it is important to realize that the first base bag is completely in fair territory; the base is completely outside the running lane. Obviously, a batter-runner needs to step out of the running lane to touch first base. He is thus allowed this leeway in his final thrust for first base without being called out for running lane interference provided he was in the lane prior to his step or reach for the base. This aspect of the rule is clearly covered in the Official Rules and is common sense in all other rule codes."

He wasn't just on the line the entire time, he was clearly and completely in fair ground with his final strides. The step/stride/reach outside the lane has to be the final movement....not for multiple strides before.

If you watch the replay, Garver's last step with his left foot (26 seconds) before touching the bag was not only within fair territory, but he was so far over, his step actually went beyond the 2nd base side edge of 1b. He was WELL over. Also, the step before that was also entirely in fair territory and the step before that appears to be also.

He had drifted so far fair, you can see him almost lunge back toward the foul line to step on the bag...and he came down in the middle of it.

He's a catcher and he deliberately watched GRod field the ball.....he knew exactly what he was doing. Good move on his part, brainfart on GRod and Mountcastle imo.

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[SemperFi]

33 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Mountcastle set up correctly. The proper play for the 1B is to set up with the left foot on the bag and square to the fielder with both hands up. I think that if Grayson had hit him in the back it would have been called but I've seen worse not called. The better play would have been for Grayson to shuffle to his left to create a throwing lane and then make a strong throw to first. If he had done that, nothing else would have mattered. 

The runner did exactly what he should have done.  Grayson did what every pitcher or catcher  from age 10 on is told not to do.  Never, ever lob a throw over the head of a runner, as you noted step back to create a throwing lane.

[baltfan]

2 hours 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.  

I have looked at this again.  Grayson is literally on the foul line when he picks up the ball.  I don't understand why it isn't an easy throw if Mountcastle puts his right foot on the bag and stretches into foul territory for the throw.  Maybe that would have resulted in Garver veering that way, but it would have likely been more obvious.

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, cboemmeljr said:

GARVER'S HIT

 

TURNER'S HIT

I was at the game and never bothered to go back and look at the play. 
 

Grayson needed to just plant his foot, step and throw. His momentum kept taking him into the line. Odd looking in person and even more so now. 

[CP0861]

55 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Mountcastle set up correctly. The proper play for the 1B is to set up with the left foot on the bag and square to the fielder with both hands up. I think that if Grayson had hit him in the back it would have been called but I've seen worse not called. The better play would have been for Grayson to shuffle to his left to create a throwing lane and then make a strong throw to first. If he had done that, nothing else would have mattered. 

Yeah, I know what "the book" says....give a wide target.

Beyond that, proper is a matter of opinion I guess. If they could run that play back, you'd have Mounty do the exact same thing?

In that situation - best case scenario it's a bang/bang play. I know it's not conventional, but in a bang bang play down the line, I want my first baseman's glove as close to the throw as possible.  With the right foot on the bag, you've got a longer reach to the ball. A RH 1b also has better range pivoting on the right foot in case of a wide throw. The glove is in basically the same spot location (although closer with right foot on bag) regardless of which foot is on the bag, so from the fielder's perspective it's essentially the same throw. Just not the comfy HS textbook visual of looking at 2 shoulders.

There was no time for him to shuffle to his left and then throw. Even if there was, he'd be shuffling to the left to make a throw across to the right. By the time he stopped his 6'5" momentum, he was in foul territory. The ONLY play was to pick it up and fire hard to the bag. If it hits him, that's a good thing.

Also, as obvious as it was, there's a solid shot it wouldn't have been called. Ideally, the home plate ump would be straddling the line looking straight down to 1b, but on that play, he was distracted by the runner coming home and out of position. And it is a judgement call, so no review.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[eddie83]

Grayson looked almost clumsy picking the ball up. He is athletic enough to plant and throw. 

[CP0861]

25 minutes ago, baltfan said:

I have looked at this again.  Grayson is literally on the foul line when he picks up the ball.  I don't understand why it isn't an easy throw if Mountcastle puts his right foot on the bag and stretches into foul territory for the throw.  Maybe that would have resulted in Garver veering that way, but it would have likely been more obvious.

If Mountcastle did that, my guess is that Garver would've simply ran towards him just the same way he did when he set up wide in fair territory. And then, if Garver adjusted his path towards Mountcastle and was actually in the lane, the ball would be live if it hit him. And if it didn't hit him and if there was any contact with Mountcastle, it may have been defensive interference.

Edited October 10, 2023 by CP0861

[NCRaven]

I believe that CPO is absolutely correct in his description of the rule and how it is applied.  But placing any blame for a horrible throw by Rodriguez on Mountcastle is off base, in my opinion.  Grayson failed to clear the runner and make a good throw.  It was as simple as that.

[LA2]

4 hours ago, CP0861 said:

"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).

I agree with this--Grayson will know better next time. (With yesterday's control though--still smh over the 11 walks--and the moving target, who knows if he'd have hit him!)

[spleen1015]

Grayson absolutely should have drilled him in the back.

It would have been an interesting call had he done so. He picked the ball up fair, but he was in foul territory when he threw it.

I think it's a failure on Hyde's part for not bringing this up after the play.

[LA2]

15 minutes ago, spleen1015 said:

Grayson absolutely should have drilled him in the back.

It would have been an interesting call had he done so. He picked the ball up fair, but he was in foul territory when he threw it.

I think it's a failure on Hyde's part for not bringing this up after the play.

Buck or the Earl probably would have.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, spleen1015 said:

Grayson absolutely should have drilled him in the back.

It would have been an interesting call had he done so. He picked the ball up fair, but he was in foul territory when he threw it.

I think it's a failure on Hyde's part for not bringing this up after the play.

Why would it have been an interesting call? If the runner is inside the foul line -- and he was -- and the pitcher's (or catcher's) throw toward the  first baseman hits the runner, he's out. I thought that was absolutely clear, and I both yelled at the TV and posted in the Game Thread to that effect. Am I missing some complication in the rule?

It's a stupid rule, and it calls on fielders to act contrary to the fact that for all other throws involving base runners that you want to find a throwing lane that enables your throw not to hit the runner. That's just not true for balls fielded along the foul line between home and first. 

[spleen1015]

14 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Why would it have been an interesting call? If the runner is inside the foul line -- and he was -- and the pitcher's (or catcher's) throw toward the  first baseman hits the runner, he's out. I thought that was absolutely clear, and I both yelled at the TV and posted in the Game Thread to that effect. Am I missing some complication in the rule?

It's a stupid rule, and it calls on fielders to act contrary to the fact that for all other throws involving base runners that you want to find a throwing lane that enables your throw not to hit the runner. That's just not true for balls fielded along the foul line between home and first. 

It would have been interesting because the runner is supposed to run in foul territory and Grayson was throwing from foul territory. If he hits him with the throw from foul territory, do they still call it by the rules? Is the call different because both are in foul territory? I don't think it is but I don't know the nuiance of MLB rules.

These are MLB players. They can adapt to the play. If 13 year old kids can do, they can do it.

[spiritof66]

7 minutes ago, spleen1015 said:

It would have been interesting because the runner is supposed to run in foul territory and Grayson was throwing from foul territory. If he hits him with the throw from foul territory, do they still call it by the rules? Is the call different because both are in foul territory? I don't think it is but I don't know the nuiance of MLB rules.

These are MLB players. They can adapt to the play. If 13 year old kids can do, they can do it.

It doesn't matter where the ball is fielded or thrown from. The batter is out for interfering, not with the thrower, but with the first baseman who is trying to take the throw. That's why there was no interference call here: MC was able to handle the lollipop low just fine. 

The rule says a batter 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, the batter-runner 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; except that the batter-runner 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;
A.R.— 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."