 |
| Thomas ruled out after not running within lane. |
This is Vic Carapazza (85)'s second ejection of 2013.
Vic Carapazza now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 + 2 + 2 = 8).
Crew Chief Gary Cederstrom now has 2 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (1 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 2).
*This call is correct pursuant to OBR Rule 6.05(k).
This is the 95th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 45th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Twins' 2nd ejection of 2013, 4th in the AL Central (CLE 5; DET, KC 3; MIN 2; CWS 1).
This is Ron Gardenhire's 3rd ejection of 2013 and first since May 25, 2013 (Joe West; QOC = Y).
This is Vic Carapazza's first ejection since June 1, 2013 (Joe Girardi; QOC = Y).
Wrap: Minnesota Twins vs. New York Yankees, 7/13/13
Video: After interference call dead ball, Gardenhire argues the point and is ejected (MIN)
60 comments :
This is a perfect case to show a major flaw in the baseline down first base. Yes he was inside the baseline when he was hit but with the base being in fair territory and Thomas being right on top of the base when he was hit by the ball it is really not possible for him to step on 1st base without being on the inside of the running lane. The base is not located within the running lane so he was basically out no matter what the case because being in the 3 foot running lane he cannot tag the base resulting in a force out. However touching the base he is inside the running lane and gets hit by the ball resulting in him being out. In this play its a lose/lose situation for Thomas and really brings to light the flaw in the running lane down the first base line.
Well thank goodness he wasn't running on the grass line.
The MIN announcers are the pure definition of 'blind homers' in this situation. It's quite obvious he is running inside the three-foot line the entire way to the 1B and the ball hit him prior to his reaching 1B. Both of his feet are required to be inside or touching the line...neither of his feet were. Had he run between the lines most of the way to the bag and only stepped inside the line as he approached 1B he would have been fine.
Challenge. This call was absolutely brutal.
The comment on the rule makes up for this downside allowing the runner leeway in stepping outside of the lane when he is approaching 1B; however, in this situation Thomas was running inside the line the entire way to 1B which is why he is out.
6.05(k) 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. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.
Not one to blame players, but this is on F3. Need to take that throw from the outside, and not the inside.
"however, in this situation Thomas was running inside the line the entire way to 1B which is why he is out."
That's incorrect. Running out of the lane, by rule, is not illegal. Under 6.05(k), a runner can be called out for *interfering* with F3's ability to make the catch. So, that sort of addresses the commenter below, as well: the throw, under 6.05(k) does not matter, either.
In this case, I'm looking to see where the BR is in approximation to the base. Under 6.05(k) comment, "the batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a
step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base
for the sole purpose of touching first base." ... Close call. I'll save my thoughts for the challenge | vacation end for me.
Please some shoot those commentators...
You left out a few key words at the beginning of your quoting the comment. We'll have to agree to agree on the interpretation of the rule, I suppose.
The way I judge it is that in order to 'exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base' requires that he was running inside the three-foot lane the rest of the way down the line. You can't step outside of a lane that you were never running in between in the first place.
Easy call. No one on here who knows the rules would question this.
Off topic: Why is AJ (U3) handling the line-up cards for O'Nora (HP) in the CWS-PHI game? Ventura just made a double-switch, and AJ came down, pulled out the line-up cards, and made the changes as O'Nora and Ventura looked on. Is O'Nora ok?
Under that explanation he should have been safe it appears. In freezing the replays the ball appears to hit him as his foot is coming down towards the base. Ive looked at the replay several times and paused it from both angles in the replay. I managed to pause it from both angles at the exact moment the ball hits him and both of his feet are in the air on his final stride when the ball hits him. The next contact either of his feet has with the ground when the ball hits him is when his left foot lands on first base. So if running outside the running lane is not illegal unless you interfere with F3's ability to catch, and a batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane in the vicinity of first base for the purpose of touching first base then Thomas should have been safe. Also the foot he pushes off with on his final stride before the ball hits him appears to be in contact with the baseline. I'm not sure how the rule requiring him to have his feet within or on the lines marking the lane is governed. Does he have to have his entire foot within or on the baseline or does part of his foot have to be touching the line? Because, Rule 6.05(k) only states that he has to be on the line and it appears that his right foot (well more like toe) may actually be in contact with the edge of the baseline when he pushes off on his final stride before landing on the base.
No, it really wasn't.
A large part of the entire rule seems like it has to do with whether the batter/runner intentionally interferes with the play as well. From what i understand you can actually be called out if the ball hits you when your inside the runners lane as well if say you strike out on a ball in the dirt and are running to first base in fair territory while the catcher sets up the throw in foul territory and the runner goes from running inside the line (fair territory) crossing into the running line in foul territory when he sees where the first basemen is set up and gets hit by the ball intentionally while in the runners box. In that case the batter/runner would be out for intentionally interfering with the play. So what you have to look at is did he interfere with the throw or intentionally interfere with the first baseman's ability to catch the ball and would the result have been different had he actually been in the designated running lane. If you look the first baseman is giving a clear target to throw to and the ability of the pitcher to throw the ball to the first baseman is in no way obstructed by Thomas. In order for Thomas to in anyway interfere with the throw the pitcher would have had to be attempting to make a throw from pretty much directly on the line which is not the case. The throw was at least 2 1/2 feet offline from where the target is. Also if you watch the video you can see that when Thomas sees the first baseman moving his glove towards the bag to receive the throw he actually begins to duck down so the throw does not hit him. So in reality because of where the pitcher is making the throw he is in no way interfering with the ability of the pitcher to make the throw. And in attempting to duck out of the way when he sees where the first baseman's glove is going he is making an attempt not to interfere with the catch.
Both feet have to be inside the three-foot lane or at least touching the three-foot line. For example, as he was running to first his right foot could have been between the lines and his left foot touching the line and then as he approached 1B he could have stepped to the left. However, with only his right foot ever making contact with the line and his left foot not even close to the lane then he was never considered to be inside or touching the lane.
In order for him to be safe he would have to be considered inside the lane (both feet inside or touching the three-foot line) as he was running, then would have to step outside of the line just as he approached 1B. Since he was never running inside the lane to begin with, he did not have the opportunity to exit the lane at the vicinity of 1B; therefore, the interference is the correct call.
It's something that is misunderstood at many levels. Players really need to practice more on running down to first while staying within the lane then reaching for the base as they approach, even when plays like this don't occur..that way when they do they don't run into an issue.
The reason this is an incorrect call is in order to have interference is ...the runner is out of the runners lane AND it must be a 'true' throw....this is from JEAPU.
In order to leave the lane for the sole purpose of touching first base, he must've been in the lane prior to his last step, stride, etc. This wasn't the case. Therefore, he is not protected by the exception. As for the third base umpire handling the cards, in some instances where it may be a hot or humid day, and the plate umpire sweats a lot, another umpire (usually third) will hold the cards for him during the game to prevent them from getting soggy.
I'm still not in agreement. To have interference, you need two components: out of the box and *interference*. Just being out of the box does not mean that you will be called out for interference. You *can* be called out for interference if you are out of the box and the umpire has determined in his discretion that the line taken interfered with the fielder's ability to be called out.
To me, whether he runs inside or outside of the first base [prior to the final step or two] does not matter [unless the runner interfered with the fielder's attempt to make the play on the ball]. In this case, I think HP missed this call. The BR did not interfere with F3 and had the right to abscond from the baseline to reach first base. When he hinders the fielder's attempt to receive the throw, he's well within his right to reach first base [he's only about a step away].
I don't remember my rule citations, but: the feet, with respect to 6.05(k) comment, do not matter. Outside of that, both feet need to be the right of the baseline [one foot does not suffice].
I believe O'Nora left the game in Philadelphia because of injury because watching extra innings Welke is behind the plate. Tough because they are playing a doubleheader.
This is a flawed rule. It always has been a flawed rule. The umpires are stuck with it however. Change the rule and make it right.
A plethora of AAA umpires working in MLB tonight. Glaring exception? Jordan Baker. He's down in AAA tonight.
"the batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base
for the sole purpose of touching first base."
The key word in this is EXIT. He is allowed to exit the 3 foot lane to touch the base. The reason he is out is because he was never in the lane and interfered with 1B ability to field the throw. Had he been in the runners lane and exited to touch the base and then interfered I would agree with the safe call. But that clearly didn't happen here.
I see this as a great call. Yes the runner was in the vicinity of the base and the rule states...
"the batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base."... but the key word in this is EXIT. He was never in the runner's lane so the fact that he is in the vicinity of the base when he commits the interference is a mute point. Great call!
That was Ron Coomer sharing most of the stupidity. He isn't the regular, but was filling in for Bert Blyleven. Dick Bremer is usually really fair, but I think Coomer pulled the ignorance out of him. You usually don't get such a poor display of commentary when Dick and Bert are working together. That was just embarrassing broadcasting, and I'm a big Twins fan.
Yes. Some kind of right wrist injury. He's had a brutal year.
Wendelstedt tossed Harper in the eight in Miami.
Bryce harper just got tossed by Hunter Wendelstedt for arguing a called strike 3
This is a perfect example of how the rule book is bullshit. I hate how so many rules contradict other rules. FYI I was drunk when I wrote this so sorry for any mess ups!
A brief aside: Bryce Harper was ejected tonight in the Nats-Fins .by HP Hunter Wendelstadt arguing balls and strikes - the pitch was on the outside corner (borderline px) and about navel high.
Harper explodes like a 3 year old child; what a little punk.
Yes but his running lane in no way impeded the pitcher from making a throw to first base.Where the pitcher fielded the ball and threw from was not even remotely close to being impeded by where Thomas was running. He had a completely clear path to throw the ball to make the play and record the out and could have done so without having to move or adjust his throw to compensate for the runner.
The fact the throw was over 2 feet should not result in an interference call on a play that had the runner not been there and not been hit would have been a relatively tough catch for the first baseman due to how significantly offline the throw was. So in essence yes he was running inside the line but did his path in anyway interfere with the fielders ability to make the play with minimal effort and a reasonable throw, no it did not making the line he chose to run somewhat of a mute point since the play would not have been altered in anyway whatsoever had he actually been in the running lane until the final stride as opposed to where he was. He would have been hit by the ball either way because of the wildly bad throw.
In re 095 Carapazza 2:
This appeal has been summarily denied by the UEFL Appellate Interpreter.
UEFL Rule 6-1 requires a charge of challenge or reason for appeal in order for consideration. This appeal lacks a charge of challenge and has been denied certiorari for that reason.
Certiorari denied.
This is a situation where the game of baseball itself is flawed. The runner is expected to run in foul territory, yet the base is in fair territory. Because the rulebook leaves much discretion to the home plate umpire in this situation, the call can obviously be deemed acceptable under the rules. However, this is a situation where the umpire has to quickly analyze the play use good judgement, which Carapazza did not do here. Even had Thomas had run in the lane, he would have still had to leave the lane to touch the base. The pitcher's throw and the placement of the fielder's glove is what caused the ball to hit the runner -- not Thomas running out of the baseline. That's something Carapazza should have taken into account in ruling on this play. When you think about it, if the home plate umpire strictly enforces the running lane rule, then any pitcher in that situation could simply rifle the ball into the runner's back, earning an automatic out (and preventing any other baserunners from advancing). So, because the runner has to leave the lane no matter what, this is an instance where the home plate umpire needs to determine whether the running being out of the lane is what really caused the failure to record the out or not. In this case, the defense was the issue, not the runner.
Coomer is an idiot. I hate being in the press box at the same time. Blyleven is a nice guy but doesn't know the rules. Bremer is an absolute homer and very anti umpire. The TV broadcast is terrible in regards to being anti ump and homers. The radio broadcasts are worse.
The position or direction in which the ball is thrown makes no difference. The fact that the play would have been the same had he run in the lane makes no difference.
The concept is simple...if you run to 1B and both of your feet are not inside or touching the running lane up until your last step and the ball hits you in the back, then you are out and any other runners return to the base they previously occupied.
The other part of the rule that you are missing though is that the interference doesn't have to have anything to do with the throw. It only needs to interfere with a fielder's ability to receive the throw at 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,..."
The umpire is never to worry about the direction of the throw in the case of runner's lane interference, just whether or not if the throw, as it was made, could have been fielded by the fielder at 1st if the interference did not occur.
If you actually read a rule book and knew the rule you make a clown out of yourself. Run in the running lane...it's not rocket science.
Under that logic a hitter/runner that hits a ground ball to the third baseman and runs down the line in fair territory and gets hit in the side by an offline throw from the third baseman across the diamond before he contacts the base would also be out because he did not run in the designated runners lane and was hit by the throw despite the throw being wild coming from the third baseman on the opposite site of the diamond.
I use this as an example of your argument to make the point that the rule is in place to prevent runners from running down the line in fair territory in an instance where the fielder (usually catcher) would have to field and throw the ball on or near the baseline and would be hindered in their ability to make a throw due to the batter/runner being in fair territory. Another words the rule is there for plays in which the outcome of the play is directly related to the batter/runners position when advancing to first base.
This was not the case here. There was no interference caused by the path Thomas chose to run and you yourself said had he been running in the runners lane and then moved outside of the running lane on his last step you would have considered him to be safe. The fact is the rule is in place to prevent the runner from interfering with the ability of the other team to make the play and in this case the ability of the opposing team was in no way hindered by Thomas' location running down the line.
It is also for that reason I believe this play should be challenged because I firmly believe the rule was not even applicable due to the integrity of the play in no way being affected by Thomas being outside of the designated running lane. I advise people to watch the video and pay close attention to where the first baseman is located to receive a throw and where the pitcher is located vs where the runner is to see that both the pitcher/fielder and first baseman have a clear path to each other and that the only way Thomas can even interfere would be for the pitcher to either throw wildly offline (which he did) or intentionally throwing the ball at Thomas as opposed to the first basemen.
According to the PBUC Manual: The batter is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base. However, a batter-runner who runs to first base in fair territory and ignores the three-foot lane violates the spirit of the rule and would be out if he interferes with the fielder any distance from first base.
Seems to me as if this is EXACTLY what happened on this play. Good call by Vic. Broadcasters, not so much.
Is this really a foul ball? It looks to me that the ball came off the bat, hit the shoe, and then bounced fair.
I Challenge based off of the fact that Thomas did not interfere with the throw because it was such a poor throw it was basiclly thrown away and if it hadn't hit Thomas it probly down the. Right field line
Is everyone's Troll detector working properly? Did everyone fail to notice the poster's name was Ken? As in Ken "Hawk" Harrellson? Famous for calling correct calls his pea brain can't understand "absolutely" brutal"? Step it up guys, or the Trolls will eat us alive.
You completely made an attempt to butcher what I was trying to say. The issue with your argument is that you have a point of view and are attempting to interpret a rule in a way that will fit your argument.
The rule is quite simple, it's black and white, and doesn't need any interpretation. 'Olaf the White' posted a great comment below with the comment from the PBUC manual. It doesn't matter where the throw comes from. It doesn't matter where the runner is when he interferes, as long as he hasn't crossed 1B. The only thing that matters is...If the runner ran outside of the three-foot lane as he came down the second half of the first base line and at any point before he touches first base he impedes the ability of the first baseman to catch the ball then he is out. If the runner runs inside the three-foot lane up until he approaches first base, only exiting the three-foot lane to touch first base, and he impedes the ability of the first baseman to catch the ball then he is safe. The throw has NOTHING to do with it. The person throwing the ball could, seeing the runner was running inside the lane, intentionally hit the runner in the back and the runner would still be out since he blocked the ability for the first baseman to field the ball. The only things that matter are...did the runner run inside or outside of the three-foot lane AND could the first baseman have fielded the ball if the runner had not been in the way.
"and in this case the ability of the opposing team was in no way hindered by Thomas' location running down the line."
If this was the case then the first baseman would have been able to field the ball. It's not the team's ability to field the ball that is in question, only the first baseman's ability to field the ball. Had this ball not hit Thomas, it would have been caught by the first baseman, there is no question in that, even if the throw was a little wild, the video and stills show that it would have been caught.
Cannot recall the rule offhand, but I thought his feet had to be outside the fair line (which they were not). Good call.
Oh, look. Someone else is challenging the application of a rule because it /shouldn't/ be intended for this situation, despite there being no addendum to the contrary. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone attempting this, I'd have 65 cents.
Hate to tell you this Eric, but your example in your first paragraph is somewhat flawed. If the ball contacts the runner on a throw from third and that stops the first baseman from fielding the throw then yes, its interference. If it is so wide as the first baseman cannot field it and it contacts the runner, then no it is not interference.
If you go back to a bunt situation and a pitcher airmails a throw because the runner was in the way and the 1st baseman has no chance because of how high the throw is, then it is not interference. The throw is never the issue, just the first baseman's (or fielder at 1st) ability to field the throw.
Everybody here has over complicated this! Let us go back to basic definitions here, folks.
INTERFERENCE: The intentional act of an offensive player that deprives a defensive player an OPPORTUNITY to make a play. That alone makes this play a correct - and basic - call.
At our high school softball new umpires clinic, we tell them that running inside the 1B line is an intentional act. This rule is there for a reason - they want that batter/runner OUT of the way of any throws to try to retire him/her. So I would have no problem if a catcher deliberately throws right in the back of a guy running n the left side of the line. Not too hard of course!
This is exactly the kind of rule/interp that everyone except reasonably trained umpires has zero clue on - as demonstrated by a lot of posters here.
Rule 6.05(k) states 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, 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"
As has been stated by multiple people the only way he is being called out is because he ran down the line in fair territory and had he been in the running lane and crossed over for the purpose of tagging the bag he would have been safe. As has been argued and had also been agreed on by most is that the ball would have hit Thomas either way because he was so close to the bag when he was hit. So the question I pose to you is in your judgement did his running inside the line really interfere with the ability of the fielder to make the throw or as has been argued was the end result going to be the same had he been in the runners lane and crossed over for the purpose of tagging the bag.
I believe the ball was going to hit Thomas either way and therefor my argument is that interference was not caused by Thomas running inside the line but was caused by the offline throw and by the official rule he should only be called out on interference if in the umpires judgement the interference was caused as a result of him running inside the line which I do not believe it was. My argument is and continues to be that if he had run in the running lane and crossed over at the last stride for the purpose of contacting first base the throw would have still hit him. By the rule he should only be out on interference if the interference was caused because of him running inside the line and I firmly believe because the ball hit him when he was quite literally on top of the bag that his running inside the line is not what caused the interference and therefore not applicable in this instance.
FYI I pulled the rule in the first paragraph from the 2013 Edition of the Official Baseball Rules. (the portion about coming out of the runners lane to tag the bag is in the comment portion of rule 6.05(k) which I did not post due to it being posted multiple times already)
That does not make the play correct because the interference was not an "intentional act" by Thomas. In fact when he sees the first baseman's glove moving towards him he begins to duck which shows he was actually trying to get out of the way of the throw and therefor not interfere.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
In re: 095 Carapazza 2;
After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 3-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Two Appeals Board members voted to confirm the Original Ruling while one elected to uphold it.
Majority Opinion, RichMSN, joined by tmac:
I'm not sure what case could possibly be made:
(1) He was out of the lane all the way down. He gets no "last step out of the lane exception."
(2) It was a quality throw (F2 is not required to throw inside or outside or avoid the runner when he's out of the lane).
(3) The BR interfered with F3 receiving the ball at first base BEFORE he touched first base. Absent the interference, the BR would've been out.
About as textbook a RLI as there could be. Confirm.
Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue:
Because the BR did indeed run the whole 90 feet outside the runners lane, I don't feel he should be afforded the protection under the rule interpretation that allows the runner to leave the lane to touch first.
Concurring Opinion, anon:
According to the JEAPU, the exemption to 6.05(k) [the comment about "permitted to exit the three-foot lane..."] "applies only if the batter-runner has been running legally in the lane" (BRD Note 262).
Official Interpretation 272-289: Evans: "A runner who has advanced the entire distance from home plate to first in fair territory making no effort to run within the lane is not extended the same leniency as the runner who runs in the lane as required and then cuts into fair territory near the base to touch it. (JEA/7:94)"
Meanwhile, the discussion references "true throw" while Wendelstedt Official Interp 273-289 (BRD) states: "The determination is not whether the throw is true but whether it could still reasonably retire the runner." This standard becomes the definition of "quality throw."
We are mandated by rule and official interps to (1) not extend the same leniency to B1 Thomas as we would to a runner who has been running legally in the lane prior to exiting near the base; and (2) consider not whether the throw was true but whether the throw could still have reasonably retired the runner.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: tmac, RichMSN
Upheld: BT_Blue
Overturned: -
Deferred: -
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment), yawetag (owns Carapazza), Turducken (vacation)
The interference was the result of the baserunner intentionally committing an illegal act.
Your right on the money with your rule Eric..but where you are flawed is in your thinking that it matters whether or not the ball would have hit him. It makes no difference if the ball would have hit him if he had he been running in the lane. If he is interferes with the first baseman's fielding of the ball and he was running outside the lane he is out. If he interferes with the first baseman's fielding of the ball and he was running inside the lane he is safe..it's that simple. It is up to the runner to ensure that he follows the rule and runs inside the lane.
Eric, According to the PBUC, a running that does not run within the three-foot lane has completed an 'intentional act', therefore is liable to be called out for interference.
While it seems to me that the ejection was warranted, and the call was correct, has anyone else noticed that forcing a runner outside the lines is a great way for them to roll an ankle? The base is fully within fair territory, but the runner can't be? That doesn't seem to make too much sense to me. Oh well.
The idea he 'ducked' is immaterial. He still was on the wrong side of the line and denied the defense the opportunity to make a play. Textbook interference in baseball or softball.
Interference with a thrown ball any other time has to be intentional, like sliding into second base on a steal attempt. Runner's lane interference is it's own rule and does not need to be intentional. I appreciate your thoroughness, but you are wrong here. This was interference and he got it right.
He can be in fair territory when he gets a step from first base and not be guilty of interference if he has been in the runner's lane up until that point.
You need to get to an umpiring clinic if this is your understanding of the runner's lane rule.
If players would practice more doing it the proper way they would have nothing to worry about.
They can run right on the line and be considered within the running lane. This is not a terribly difficult rule to follow and not very dangerous. If he ran down the line (instead of inside of it) and took even 2 steps to get to the base I am certain this would not have been called.
I think the key to the out being called was that he never even tried to run in the running lane...not even one step.
Post a Comment