What a great explanation. I’m in my 41st year of coaching, currently at the high school level, and the things I hate the most is youth coaches, at every level that act like they know a rule, when they clearly don’t, as well as running on a field and loudly protesting. You have an opportunity to call time and talk to the umpire in a respectful way. I can’t tell you the calls that have been overturned by remaining calm, being respectful, asking the umpire why they made the call they did, and stating your case or rule. If you do know the rule and the umpire does not, or interprets it in a way that does not favor your team, move on. In two weeks no one will remember. In two years no one will care.
@@cloudwatcher724 , ha ha Thank you Steve, I needed the laugh. I think in text, my post may sound a little like grandstanding. I tell people that I know I’m not the smartest guy in the room, even when I’m by myself, but I’m still trying to be a better person.
@@cloudwatcher724 , I really appreciate you. Seriously, you have made my day. I have had a blessed life involving coaching and youth sports in general. So many great memories and I’m still seeing the rewards of kids I coached well over 30 years ago. I’m a lucky man.
Great explanation! Its so frustrating to watch an MLB game where the announcers are so clueless about the rules. I think so much controversy could have been avoided in that WS game if the announcers knew what they were talking about.
It is beyond me why baseball does not institute the double bag at 1B like softball does. It eliminates so many controversies and basically forces the runner to run in the lane. I can't ever remember having to make an out call for lane interference when a double bag was being used.
4:15 the corollary to this: if a batter does this to you and bets that you won't peg him in the back with the baseball, do it. the batter is betting on the fact that he can use your politeness against you. it's not unclassy to peg in this situation. it's fair game. it doesn't have to be as hard as you can muster. just swift enough to make sure you can throw it at him accurately and in time to make the play.
Just because the rulebook says one thing doesn't make it not a BS call. Trea Turner should be able to run in a straight line to the base. Runners should be able to run in the lane created by home plate to 1B.
This exact thing happened to me yesterday. I beat the throw but his glove was over the base. I ended up running into his glove knocking out the ball and went to 2nd.
This situation is one reason why teams like a left-handed first baseman if they can get them. But coaches should also use this as an opportunity to teach their catchers and first basemen how to communicate. Usually, depending on where the ball is, the catcher will call “outside” or “inside” to let the first baseman where he is throwing the ball. It will often be “outside” (or to the foul side of the bag) if the catcher is retrieving a dropped third strike in foul territory. It’s a good idea to include this in a practice. This obviously doesn’t apply in Little League, where the rule doesn’t permit a batter to attempt to advance to first on a dropped third strike (unless that rule has changed). But it’s a good idea for that next level up, on a full sized diamond. Bear in mind, in many leagues, there is no runners alley marked on the field at all, and that is going to make it more difficult for an umpire. We were often fortunate if we had a field with a foul line marked. That often makes it difficult for the runner to identify or find the runner’s lane when there are no lines at all.
it is a good point. however, it takes a very well-disciplined team to execute this properly. can't tell you how many times i've seen a catcher yelling "inside!" or "outside!" three or four times, all the time holding the ball, then try to nolan ryan a perfect throw to first. say it once, then step and throw. why make an easy play difficult? of course, i'm just the umpire...
Efficient Lawn Maintenance LLC he didn’t get ejected because he didn’t try throwing him around he just put his hand on his shoulder. Nothing wrong with that right?
Depends on the relationship: in youth ball a lot of these guys are friends off the field. We often got umped by our catcher's father, who was best friends with our coach. The upside of that is that the team got a rules clinic at every practice and the coach could have a good conversation when the ump got it wrong (which was pretty rare): the downside being that the ump would call harder on us because he didn't want anyone thinking there was any favoritism.
This advice doesn’t apply in games played under NFHS (high school) rules. A bad throw caused by a runner who is out of the lane can be called out for interference. Unlike OBR (Official Baseball Rules), a quality throw is not required.
i'm curious how, as an umpire, you would define (and defend) a "bad" throw. in my opinion, a quality throw that is impeded a batter/runner who is NOT in the runner's lane makes it a lot easier call to sell. if the catcher "sails" the throw and then whines, as a plate umpire, i got nothin'. it's similar to a catcher who is attempting to throw out a runner stealing a base, sees the batter in the way, and holds his throw. a defensive player who completes a quality play deserves every call the rule book will give them. go chefs.
@@cloudwatcher724 Let's say a batter bunts the ball in front of the plate that is fielded by the catcher. The batter-runner is completely out of the running lane, in fair territory. The catcher sails the ball of the first baseman's head. RULING: MLB - Too bad. Learn how to throw a baseball. Play on. Had it hit the batter-runner, that would be different. High School - Dead ball. Interference! Batter-runner is out.
@@DavidEmerling79 i would (respectfully) make a different call in your high school example. it might not be by the letter of the law/nfhs-wise, but i'm never going to reward a bad throw. side note: i'd LOVE to be in the stands when you make this call. i'd help the law enforcement escort you off the field at the end of the game... have a great weekend.
@@cloudwatcher724 As a high school umpire, you would then be making the wrong call. And, lots of people would know that you've made the wrong call - especially your partner. There are *lots* of high school rules I disagree with. This is probably one of them. But I don't have the luxury of calling the game with my own, personal style. I've been calling high school games for nearly 30 years. I just shrug my shoulders and call the games as our state association mandates. If the teams don't like it - their beef isn't with me. For instance, in high school, if the pitcher balks, the ball is immediately dead. Not so in "regular" baseball. If the pitcher balks and still delivers the ball to the batter, and the batter jacks the ball over the outfield fence, the balk is ignored and the home run stands. Not in high school. No pitch. No home run. Dumb? Yes! But calling it any other way is against the rules.
The quality throw does NOT apply to high school. NFHS role is that a throw must be made. No words about quality. NFHS 8-4-1-g The batter-runner is out when (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.
Umping a girl's softball game, I called a runner out because she ran to the left of the line and obstructed the view of the first base fielder as the throw came from the catcher. Needless to say the Manager couldn't believe my call. He said I've NEVER seen that call made. As an umpire you don't go out there with the intent of making ticky tack bullshit calls, but this one was a no brainer.
@@direcorbie I'm curious what the rules are there, here's what I could find via the NCAA "2.28 Runner’s Lane The runner’s lane is the area that is the last half of the distance between home plate and first base where a batter-runner must run to avoid interfering with a fielder’s attempt to receive a thrown ball. It is bounded by a 30-foot line drawn in foul territory parallel to and 3 feet from the first base line, starting at a point halfway between home plate and the back edge of first base. If the infield is skinned, it is recommended the runner’s lane be skinned." "12.5.5 When either of her feet is completely outside the runner’s lane, in contact with the ground, and, in the judgment of the umpire, she interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Exceptions: She may run outside the runner’s lane: (1) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner’s lane; (2) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (3) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base." so based on that, she would be in violation if she wasn't in the lane and interfered with the fielder at 1st receiving the throw so pretty identical to MLB rules regarding that
4:29 - "if the pitcher's throw bounces before reaching the fielder on first, then it's not interference." This is absolutely wrong as a blanket statement. Bouncing the throw does not, by itself, in any way diminish the likelihood or validity of calling interference for running lane violation. The only criteria is if the throw could reasonably have retired the runner, and the runner out of the lane interfered with fielding the throw. if it's a bad throw that was unlikely to result in an out absent the interference, then interference should not be called because the runner didn't interfere with anything. Some ugly bounces may make the throw extremely difficult to field, which would thus tend to eliminate interference, but it's absolutely wrong to just say "if it bounces, then it's not interference". This is one of many cases where umpire gotta umpire.
I will agree with you that it's possible on a long hop that this could still be interference. I just never ever saw one and can't imagine it ever occurring. That being said. Little League is always the place you find the absurd and unimaginable actually happening. A short hop can't be considered ordinary effort for this play in my judgement. Obviously not an in-between hop.
@@MJHBaseball umpire gotta umpire, but the gist of most interpretations is to give deference to the defense on RLI (i.e. if the runner is out of the lane and things go bad, we should be calling RLI unless there's a clear reason not to). that's another point I disagree with you on: the running lane rule is absolutely not for the runner; it's 100% for the defense.
Official Baseball Rules (MLB) has an official interpretation that requires the throw to 1st to be a "quality" throw before the batter-runner can be guilty of a running lane violation. In other words, the throw to the fielder receiving the throw at 1st must be direct and catchable. For a football analogy: The defense is never called for pass interference if the pass is uncatchable. If the throw to 1st hits the runner (who is out of the lane) and, in the umpire's opinion, the throw may not have been catchable by the first baseman, no interference will be called. A throw that hits the ground would probably not be considered a "quality throw." You won't find this in the rule book. It's an official interpretation. Those are "rules" that umpires are required to know that amplify rules that are in the rule book that may not address every possible situation. Umpires are expected to apply these official interpretations for consistency. High School rules (NFHS) has a completely different official interpretation in this regard. A quality throw is *not* required. For instance, if the batter-runner is out of the lane, and the catcher air mails the ball well over the first baseman's head in attempt to avoid hitting the runner - the runner would be called out for interference because the runner *affected* the play at 1st.
@@rayray4192 You're probably right because a throw that hits the runner could probably have been caught by the fielder at 1st. However, another interpretation is that the throw must originate from the area BEHIND the running lane. For example: PLAY: The batter hits a grounder up the middle that is fielded by the shortstop near the area of 2nd base. He has to make a quick, off balance throw to retire the batter-runner. The throw is off target and pulls the 1st baseman to his left. The runner, running out of the lane, collides with the first baseman who moved into the runner's path. The first baseman does not make the catch. That cannot be a running lane violation. That doesn't mean that the batter-runner could not be called out for interference if, in the umpire's opinion, he did something INTENTIONAL to interfere with the first baseman's opportunity to catch the throw - but it wouldn't be a running lane violation, it would be just regular interference, if anything.
The rule for high school has no bearing on if the throw is good or not. It's very simple in high school if you are not in the runners lane then any play made to first regardless of the throw the batter runner is out and all other runners return to base occupied at time of pitch
let's see, I googled this and verified this "NFHS 8-4-1-g The batter-runner is out when (g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."
Three criteria: 1). Is the runner not in the lane (except to avoid a protected fielder)? 2) Is the reason the throw was not completed was because the runner was not in the lane? 3). Was the throw a quality throw? Especially in LL but even in the pros you rarely get all three criteria. Thus it’s usually a no-call. So when it happens most people are clueless.
The quality throw part is a major league and NCAA thing. NHS, high school, does NOT have a quality throw addition. So I'm assuming little league doesn't either.
I question the statement about one hoppers as all first baseman should reasonable handle them. Especially long throws from deep short/third are reasonably caught when one hopped.
A long hop from an outfielder maybe. And good first baseman should catch most of the hops. But when it comes to this call, the same rule applies to "reasonable effort" that applies to assigning errors. For example, if the shortstop throws a ball to first base that bounces before it reaches first base and the first baseman probably should have caught it, the error is still assigned to the shortstop because the rule for assigning an error in that situation is that if the ball it's the ground first then it's the error of the person throwing it. So in our play, if the thrown ball hits the ground before reaching the 1st baseman, the umpire should never call the runner out on runner lane interference.
@@MJHBaseball actually 6.05 (j) your protecting the fielder taking the throw and if your fielder can/should catch the single hop then it's an out. Reset other runners
We used to do this growing up. We were taught that when you hit the ball, like a bunt, and you knew there was no way to get to first, to run just inside the lane to try to make the catcher or pitcher misthrow the ball. We were also taught to throw the ball at the numbers of any runner running inside the lane to first. I can't tell you the number of runners I have gunned down as a pitcher or catcher. We were forced to protest numerous games for umpires not knowing the rules, and won most of the protests. The only ones we lost were city league games where the umpires are more often than not just not professional umpires. Nothing against them, but they just didn't have the knowledge.
@@gregbutler5521 it’s absolutely the fault of the batter/ runner if he runs out of the running lane, but protecting the batter/ runner is not the intention of the running lane rule. Read the rule. Historically and today the purpose of the running lane rule is to assure the fielder at first base has a fair chance to field a throw from the plate area. You should be able to figure it out by simply reading the rule. The rule gives absolutely no consideration to the batter/ runner. The rule simply explains a batter/ runner places himself in jeopardy of having interference called upon him if he runs outside the lane and interferes with a fielder at first base receiving a throw from the home plate area, but the rule was never intended to help a batter/ runner; it’s all about helping the defense. And when you start a post off with a one word question ( Why?), I don’t know what you are asking. I guess you are asking why the rule doesn’t protect the batter/ runner. Read the rule and the way the text reads. It’s all about protecting the defense. All trained umpires know this. MJH is not an umpire. His perspective is that of a coach. He’s trying to instruct coaches how to coach. The running lane is on the field to give players instruction where to run but that’s very different than stating the R.L.R. is about protecting a batter/ runner.
@@gregbutler5521 still an inability to communicate. Why make me guess what you are asking? Are you talking about drilling a batter/ runner with a throw?
Retired crew chief Tim Tishida saw it called 10 times in a 26 year career. An ejection occurred in all 10 occurrences. Managers do not understand the rule. Nationals manager Dave Martinez was ejected from game 6 of the World Series 15 minutes after the call, and that was after his batter hit a home run after the call. He acted like a petulant child and a maniac. It’s really hard to get ejected out of a World Series game.
Completely off subject. If your bat interferes with a catcher fielding a batted ball it’s immediate time out and interference. Batter is out and all runners return to their time of pitch base.
When I was working college baseball, the Ohio Athletic Conference (OAC) used double bags....it made our job so, so much easier. I doubt they still do it.
@@buckeyebryan10 , in Oregon, many youth programs below the high school level still use them at the beginning of the season, obviously for safety reasons, and remove them later in the season.
What does that matter, it's only a few inches. The 45 foot rule is a GREAT rule despite the ignorant people who commented here on RUclips that it was a terrible rule and will be overturned. I said back then, and repeat it now, it's a great rule because as MJH says, it protects the runner from being called out for interference as long as he runs in that lane. Going to any other base, a runner who is running away from the play, CANNOT see the throw to get out of the way, but, if the ball hits him, it is interference. This is a VERY fair rule.
@@marmac2768 not true on anly base but first, if a thrown ball hits a runner going to any base there is no out unless it is first in which he has a runner lane violation.
@@matthewfarrell8233 On plays involving baserunners (other than batter-runner on his way to first base), what if the umpire judges that the baserunner intentionally interferes with fielding a thrown ball? I think OBR distinguishes between unintentional and intentional baserunner interference at any base. Intentional interference is penalized.
@@marmac2768 really Marty? Reading your past comments on other videos, I thought you were an umpire. A runner hit by a thrown ball is interference? come on
So what? Overcome adversity. Petulant child Turner hit a buck fifty as a lead off hitter in the World Series. He hit a swinging bunt and ran illegally to first base and then bitched and whined. He was out.
I love ya, MJH, but I have to partially disagree with you on this one, at least applying this rule to high school and NFHS. Section 4-1-g reads: a batter of out when g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base 1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line. There is room in there for umpire judgement as to whether a poor throw was the result of the runner outside the lane or not. A poor throw alone does not does not negate possible interference. A catcher/pitcher that has been taught properly to see where the batter runner is will throw the ball at the batter runner’s back when they see the batter runner is inside the line.
It really blew me away how many people, experienced umpires included, thought that the Turner call in the World Series was a bad call. It also infuriates me that these PROFESSIONAL baseball people, the runner and the manager, comes out there screaming that it was a bad call when they ought to know the rule and know they blew it!! It really was NOT that difficult of a call to make. REALLY!!
It just feels like a bad rule. Why does he magically get protection from stepping into this box then out of it, when he's at the exact same point when the interference occurs? What if one step had happened on the baseline before he got hit? Is that enough to get magical protection? Or does he need to be inside the two lines for the entire stretch up to this "magical point" where he can safely deviate? I could see the argument for CAUSING a bad throw by being in a different place before, but when the problem occurs when he's in a place where he's allowed to be SOMETIMES, it just feels like a bad rule. Not saying the umps got it wrong. But it's a very weird rule.
@@grife3000 This rule has been in baseball from it very beginnings. It was put in place to protect the batter runner. In all other cases, a runner is not allowed to interfere with the fielder taking the throw. The batter runner is the one most likely to do so, due to running in a mostly straight line to first base. If this rule was not there, anytime a throw that could reasonably be caught to get the runner out hits the runner, no matter where he is, the runner is out. Originally, baseball had two first bases, one in fair territory, and one in foul territory. When they eliminated the extra bag, they put into the rule the allowance to go into fair territory on his last few steps.
@@billrobelen4948 wrong. First base was originally in fair and foul territory. The foul line went down the middle of the base. It was changed around 1885. And the R.L.I. rule has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the offense. The rule is in place to protect a fielder attempting to field a throw from the plate area.
@@billrobelen4948 baseball has never used two first base bags. All batter: runners are protected from interference in their last stride into first base if they have exited the running lane to touch first base. You vinyl exit a lane you were never in.
Trey Turner did not beat the throw. He knocked the first baseman’s glove off and then whined and bitched like a petulant child, and then he mocked hall of fame player and manager Joe Torre.
Beating the throw is irrelevant, all that matters is whether 1. the runner was in the runner's lane and if no then 2. did the batter-runner interfere with the fielder at 1st receiving the throw? if 1. was no and 2. is yes then he's out for interference no matter what, doesn't matter whether he beat the throw or not
and a side note: notice how out of position the little league umpire is (at 3:42 and others showing the same play) compared to the higher leagues. in fact, the plate umpire on the trea turner play couldn't BE in better position. the strong tendency for young/inexperienced (or just lazy) plate umpires to drift behind and to one side of the plate into foul territory (i guess because they think they have no responsibilities or potential calls) should be addressed immediately and often. it's one of those no-brainers that makes it obvious to everyone how serious you are about being a good/better umpire.
MJH-Baseball of course. 7-11-P NCAA In running the last half of the distance from home plate to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, the batter-runner runs outside the 3-foot restraining line or inside the foul line and, in so doing, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, except that the batter may go outside these lines to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Note 1: If the batter-runner is running illegally to first base and his being outside the lane alters the throw of a fielder, hinders or alters a fielder’s opportunity to field the throw, or the batter-runner is hit by the throw that has been made in an attempt to make a play, it shall be called interference and the batter-runner is to be called out.
@@MJHBaseball “ A runner is out when he runs outside the three foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. N.F.H.S. 2022 rule book. It’s a terrible rule book written by bureaucrats. It’s rule 8-4-1- (G). It’s vague and does not address the issue of quality of throw. 8-4-1-(G) The 2022 Federation case book doesn’t even apply to running lane interference. 8-4-1-(G) It’s common knowledge that high school players are students who should not be hitting batter/ runners in the back, neck, or helmet with a throw, so R.L.I. should be called when the fielder throws poorly to avoid striking the batter/ runner. As Dave J stated, umpires must umpire- if the throw is 10 feet over the fielder’s head and sails into the right field corner I’m probably not calling R.L.I.
@@MJHBaseball it’s been one year and you haven’t edited your video. You start the video out incorrectly. R.L.I. has nothing to do with protecting a batter: runner. Sure, if a batter/ runner runs in the lane and makes no extra ordinary movements he’s safe from being called out for R.L.I. but it’s not the purpose of the rule. Consider editing your video.
my issue with the rule comes from the fact that base runners and batters are supposed to take a direct line to the base. Right handed batters are disadvantaged in this situation because they have to run a curve to 1st (even if it's a slight curve), instead of a straight line like lefties get in order to stay in the running lane. So why under every single other rule, the runner must take a direct line, but when it's a right handed batter they have to run a curve?
run in a straight line directly out of the batter's box that takes you to the exact point where the runner's lane begins. then continue in a straight line directly on the fair/foul line. as long as either foot (but preferably both) is touching or inside the baseline, the runner is considered inside the runner's lane. this is never as difficult as people make it sound. never. it's simply a matter of practice and choice.
Here’s the solution: hit a line drive in the gap and stand on second base like a stud. Roberto Clemente comes to mind. Tre Turner hit .160 as a lead off hitter in the World Series and then bitched because it’s illegal to run out of the running lane. The defense deserves the protection.
There is no rule that a runner must run in a straight line. It’s a myth. If a runner is being played upon ( a tag attempt) in a run down he establishes his base path ( not a base line) when a defender tries to tag him. That base path is a straight line between bases advancing or retreating. Even then he can move three feet away from the straight line to avoid a tag.
@@rayray4192 so noted. i forgot the wording to this rule was changed somewhere in the mid-2010's (if memory serves) to make it more restrictive on the runner. i like the current wording.
3:33 - you list the "misconception" that interference can/should be called if the runner interferes with the throw. This is actually the NFHS accepted interpretation of their running lane rule: "8-4-1g: The batter-runner is out if... he runs outside the 3-foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or *thrown* to first base" "(1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a *throw.* " (emphasis added) This is very different from the OBR & LL rule; I don't know about NCAA personally, I'm not that cool yet, but I see from another comment down below that the NCAA rule is more like NFHS and includes the throw as well. So between NFHS, NCAA, and the fact that many HS-age tournaments, summer leagues, etc. use NFHS rules, quite a lot of baseball is played wherein RLI can/will be called based on the throw. I've heard tell that some NFHS umpire instructors have interpreted the rule to mean that the throw doesn't matter at all, the catcher could just throw it into the air or into the dugout and still get the call; this seems ridiculous, and certainly in my state unit it's not interpreted or applied that way. We expect there to be a throw in the direction of 1B that appears to be a reasonable attempt to retire the runner; the catcher can't just point at the runner say "blue, he's out of the lane, get him!" or throw it completely wild with no intent to retire the runner, and we need to be able to make a judgment that interference occurred. However we definitely will call it on the throw: if the runner is roughly between the fielder and 1B, and we have any indication the fielder made a poor throw attempting to avoid hitting the runner out of the lane (i.e. wide throw, rainbow toss over the runner, or side-arm leaning throw, that sort of thing), that's definitely going to be called.
I admit I am not familiar with the NFHS rules and I REALLY appreciate you pointing those out, not just for me, but for others reading your comment. The more I learn about the High School rules, the less likely I am to want to ever umpire them. Unfortunately, some tournaments in youth baseball use the NFHS rules and it pains me to know any balk is going to be immediately a dead ball. That obstruction is handled different. And examples just keep coming.
@@MJHBaseball interesting that you mention the dead ball balk... nfhs just sent out their end-of-season coach/umpire survey about rules for next season, and one of the questions asked is if they ought to go to a live balk. I said yes. Doesn't mean it will happen, but it's clearly on their list to talk about.
That's not quite the whole rule. 8.4.1g(1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. So he does have to judge interference because if there is none he ignores the infraction.
@@gil4321 damn, I read 8.4.1g(1), got to the part about avoiding a fielder in the act of fielding and said "yes, that's obvious, everyone knows that" and skipped to 8.4.1g(2). reading every word is critical; it didn't make sense for the rule not to require interference, but some FED rules are a bit overbroad and I'd heard a lot of crazy things about this rule.... I think I need to heavily edit my comment; I don't mind being shown to have made a mistake in reading the rule (though what I say about how it's actually called is correct), but I've really got some inaccurate info there I don't want someone else to go wrong with. So yeah, anyone reading this later, yeah, my original post has been heavily edited, gil4321's comment was very correct that I missed something...
@@MJHBaseball I heavily edited my comment above, as gil4321 correctly pointed out I'd missed something in reading the rule which explained why the rule text didn't seem to match the way it's called - it matched just fine actually.
If the runner remains "in the lane", and very, _very_ obviously _purposely_ interferes by turning his head and reaching out with his left hand to "swat" or grab the first-baseman's glove so he can't possibly catch the ball, he _is_ out, right? Even though he was entirely in the runner's lane?
Yes. That is intentional interference and it's an out regardless of where the runner is including going to other bases. Just think of Alex Rodrigues in the 2004 ACLS. Search "2004ALCS Gm6: A-Rod slaps ball from Arroyo's glove" That's intentional interference, Alex is out and anyone on base returns to the base they were on at the time of the pitch.
In this video, he says, "The runner's lane is there to protect the runner. That is its purpose. It's not there to protect the fielder." That is completely incorrect! Protect the runner from what??? In fact, it's just the opposite. The purpose of the running lane is to allow the fielder receiving the throw at 1st base from having to deal with a batter-runner blocking the throw or blocking his vision of the throw. The lane is there to help the fielders! Of course, they are widening the running lane for beginning with the 2024 season. This is one of new rules. The running lane will now be slightly extended into foul territory, up to the point where the infield grass begins. This expansion of the lane would cause many of the example plays in this video as legal on the part of the batter-runner. The running lane was always a bit biased against right-handed hitters because, if you draw a straight line from the right-handed batter's box to 1st base, the entire trek is in fair territory - which is out of the running lane. Consequently, right-handed batters have to make a somewhat awkward turn to the right in order to get within the confines of the lane, something left-handed batters seldom have to do.
A few years back in high school my left hand batting daughter laid down a bunt before the catcher could make a throw the umpire called my daughter out, she took 3 small steps about a foot inside the line then on the line the rest of the way, was this a correct call
On the foul line is fair territory. Technically to be in the "runner's lane" you need to be in foul territory, so not on the line. BUT, she can't be called out if the catcher does not throw. Chances are your daughter had a foot on the ground outside of the batter's box when the bat contacted the ball on the bunt. This is very common in softball. If this was high school, it's unlikely the umpire didn't know the rules. Without seeing the play, I can only offer a guess.
@@MJHBaseball thanks for the quick reply, we worked hard to get her bunts down correctly, its possible she was outside the batters box ,but his explanation to the coach was she started off running to far inside the lane, not in the grass but enough for it to not allow the catcher to make a proper throw to first, which the catcher never had time to even throw before the out was called, we chalked up to experience, once again thanks for the quick reply
@@davidr9576 you can run wherever you want before the running lane. You can run wherever you want past the start of the running lane as long as you don’t interfere.
I think this is a rule that needs to be looked at and possibly changed. One thing I really don't like in sports is when a rule technicality results in an outcome different from what realistically "should" have happened. In this case, Turner beat throw, ran a direct path to first from the right handed batters box, was hit with the ball as he was directly in front of the bag and was only hit because the throw was off the mark. I understand that by the definition of the rule he is out, but that is definitely against what common sense makes one think the outcome should be.
@Black Bear Did you even read my comment? I said I understand the call was correct based on the rule, it's the rule I have a problem with. This is a situation where the enforcement of a rule results in an outcome that logically doesn't seem like what it should be. The call was made correctly under the rulebook, I just feel that this particular rule, as written, can potentially result in game changing plays that logically seem like they should go the other way.
@Black Bear my issue with the rule comes from the fact that base runners and batters are supposed to take a direct line to the base. Right handed batters are disadvantaged in this situation because they have to run a curve to 1st (even if it's a slight curve), instead of a straight line like lefties get in order to stay in the running lane. So why under every single other rule, the runner must take a direct line, but when it's a right handed batter they have to run a curve?
Trey ran in fair territory to gain an advantage. He knew what he was doing. He did it right. He knows that the ump made the right call also. It didn’t work that time. I’ll wager that he got on base safely doing the same thing previously.
@Black Bear I agree, and I don’t at the same time. In beginner baseball (Little League) we were taught to run in the foul territory running lane. That is if your coach was worth his salt. Most kids will run on the outer edge of that lane so they don’t get plunked. Even in Little League there are some kids that will run to the inner edge of the lane on that bunt, or nubber hit. Those are your all-stars, they understand the game because they are coached up. They are also the guys that make the high school team. By then the bunt is a sacrifice you are going to be out a high percentage of the time. As you climb the ladder like D1 now you are playing against all district and the “Mr. Baseball “ type of guys. The chances of getting on base on that type of hit reduce to almost never, so to gain an edge the runner will veer a bit closer and even into fair territory. He knows he’s outside the running lane. Hoping the fielder goofs up. Top rung baseball, he did it right. He took a chance and failed. By then 99/100 you’re out.
The only problem with this video was you saying all runners return based on "time of pitch". That is NOT always the case. Example: R3, no outs. Suicide squeeze play. R3 safe at home, then the throw to 1B which results in RLI penalty. Under this situation, the run would count, BR would be out for RLI. Next play is 1 out, nobody on.
When one guy is ignorant of the rule, it's certainly his fault; but when everybody is, when the Nats coach and player both are, then isn't it a systematic problem? I just find it hard to blame the individuals when the ignorace of rules among the participants of the game is so widespread. Why is this the case and who should fix it?
Very good points. The problem is that commentators and largely popular channels like Jomboy, perpetuate false ideas and poor understandings of the rules. For the casual baseball fan, there will likely never be a fix until those that comment widely take the time to learn the rules themselves. And yes, MLB players are "casual baseball fans" themselves. Most of them know 95% of the rules very well, but don't even know they don't know the other 5% at all.
@@MJHBaseball I watch Jomboy's breakdowns a lot and turn to this video because of that breakdown footage. At least he's honest about himself not being a rule guy
@@MJHBaseball And about yelling over that play, I think the coach is also compelled to great extent by baseball (or American sport) culture to yell ... he had to make himself a scene there to "fire the team up" ... in European football coaches are supposed to be gentlemanly
@@MJHBaseball Another thought popped up when I remembered people talking about how righties had a disadvantage when running to the first if they are to run in the lane, because the path would be a curve. Baseball is not fair for lefties and righties to begin with -- lefty pitchers, for instance, have an advantage in picking off the runner on first. But do you think some slight improvements could be made -- by cutting the lane from 45 ft to 30 ft, for example? My thoughts fooling around here lol Edit: in other words, why 45 ft, not longer, not shorter
This rule is stupid I mean honestly so you have to run right in runner lane and then back to left, why can’t we just run straight to the bag, if the runner’s lane is so necessary why don’t they put the bag there
The rules are the rules. But right handed batters having to go all the way across into foul territory is a little in fair. It’s already a longer distance why should the runner have to take an even longer path to the base? The fast way from point A to point B is a straight line but a right handed batter has to run across the plate and then get in foul territory to get in his runners lane?! That’s goofy
"why should the runner have to take an even longer path to the base?" Because that's the rule. Not saying it's the best rule or the correct rule, but the umpires on the field have to officiate according to the written rules, so in this case, he is out.
Be safe more often by knowing the rules??? So don't run in a straight line so you can possibly be safe on a rare interference play but be out more times on close plays at first because you didn't run in a straight line (running straight is quicker). Got it...seems like very poor strategy. The higher expected value would be to always run in a straight line except after a dropped 3rd strike.
When I played baseball up through college no one ever even told me that the runners lane existed. It was never called in any of my games ever. The coaches even taught us ways to throw to either side of the runner depending on where the ball is with no reference to the runners lane. I think that's part of the problem since if it's rarely taught or called no one really cares or understands it.
"rarely taught" and "no one... understands it" are your key words. trust me, as a high school, college, and american legion umpire, we call it all the time. as trained umpires, the rule and ruling are both quite straightforward. the fact that coaches don't teach it and players/fans don't understand it is not the fault of the officiating. as usual, take the emotion out of the play, enforce the rule, and move on. what a concept... great job as usual, mjh.
@@cloudwatcher724 that's your experience. But it's DEFINITELY NOT universal knowledge. Nor is it universally enforced. Just because it SHOULD BE, doesn't mean it is.
@@cloudwatcher724 R.L.I. is seldom called because it seldom occurs. There are not many throws in a game going to first base from the plate area. And the video starts with an error. R.L.I. rule has nothing to do with protecting a batter/ runner. The antithesis is true- trike is about protecting the defense.
@@rayray4192 i refer you to nfhs baseball rules book 2022, rule 8-4-1: "The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; (2) The batter-runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line." the implication and correct interpretation of this rule is that if the batter-runner complies with the rule, i.e., keeps both feet inside or on the lines, he is PROTECTED from being called for interference. and notice that is doesn't limit the rule as to which defensive player is fielding and/or throwing the ball. a routine grounder to any infielder brings RLI into play. of course, the overwhelming majority of coaches, players and fans (in particular) are not aware of the wording of this rule and therefore have a kannipshin fit when the rule is enforced. a little education goes a long way...
You are a good guy and you provide a needed service. Thank you. However, you are absolutely wrong. You open your video stating the running lane is on the field to protect the runner. Incorrect sir. First, he’s not a runner; he’s a batter/ runner. Second, and way more important, the running lane’s purpose is to protect the fielder at first base who is attempting to field a throw from the home plate area. There is nothing in the rule about protecting the batter/ runner.
If the batter-runner never enters the runner's lane and DOES interfere with the fielder's ability to field the throw, is the batter-runner out? If the batter-runner does enter the runner's lane and DOES interfere with the fielder's ability to field the throw, is the batter-runner out? Not sure how that "protects the fielder" since he can be interfered with in either situation. But since the batter-runner is out in one situation and not out in the other, he certainly appears to be "protected" from being called out to me. The purpose of the rule wasn't to keep the fielder "safe from contact" but to keep the batter- runner safe from an interference call if he ran correctly. As far as insisting on using the phrase, "batter-runner." That get's annoying when everyone knows what your saying, but technically you would be correct.
@@MJHBaseball I’m thinking you are a coach sir, and not an umpire. Coaches and umpires approach a baseball game very differently. The purpose of your video may be to instruct coaches how to instruct their players how to not place themselves in jeopardy of being called out for interference. That’s a great service to the baseball family and you are commended for doing do. Bravo. Words have meaning and context is everything. Umpires carefully choose their words; especially when explaining a call to a coach. You use the word “ interference” when describing a batter/ runner in the running lane “ interfering” with the fielder’s ability to field a throw. It’s impossible for a batter/ runner to interfere with a fielder fielding or in other words receiving a throw when he’s in the running lane. Even if the ball strikes him in the helmet and is deflected out of play he has not interfered. The R.L.I. rule never states the purpose of the rule is to protect a batter/ runner in the N.F.H.S. rule book or case book or the M.L.B. rule book or manual. Baseball is a defensive game despite the dancing around the bases after a home run and the choreography at home plate; which by the way is a point of emphasis for the 2022 high school season. The defense must be honored always in the game of baseball. Meaning most rules favor the defense. Since we are in the high school season it’s important to know that a quality throw with a reasonable expectation to retire a runner is not needed in high school to call interference. The players are students and are learning to be good citizens in a community which means they must be taught to play by the rules by running in the running lane giving the fielder a fair chance to make an accurate throw and the fielder a fair chance to receive the throw. The defender needs to learn sportsmanship and not drill the batter/ runner with the ball. The defense is protected, not the offense in the R.L.I. rule. Join me in admitting you are wrong. I’m wrong often. The only time I’ve ever learned anything is by being wrong. It’s humbling. Edit your video and gain even more respect. You already have lots of respect. Build even more by editing your video. From a coach’s perspective his player is protected from penalty if he runs in the running lane, but it’s not the purpose of the rule.
Okay. Good points actually. I do umpire more than coach, but the vast majority of VIEWERS of the channel are coaches but the vast majority of COMMENTORS are umpires, so you have a good point there. I view the rule primarily as a means to protect the runner if they act correctly. Not in no much as how the rule is stated but in why it was created in the first place. Originally the first and 3rd base were centered on the foul line and half of the base was in fair and half in foul territory. When they moved the base to be completely in fair territory and the base moved closer to home plate measuring 90 feet to the outside of the base rather than the center of the base, the rule needed clarification. It was meant to ensure that the runner that stayed in foul territory within 3 feet of the foul line couldn't be called out for interference. Since that was it's original intent, I see it as protecting the runner. Your comments do, of course, make all the sense in the world that TECHNICALLY any interference protects the fielder, so I see your point.
@@MJHBaseball Umpires must think in precise terms and use precise language. I put my 100 question test down ( high school test) to answer your gracious post. You are a good man serving the baseball family and everyone appreciates it. Umpires battle myths. I get frustrated with the myths because it makes my job needlessly more difficult. Hopefully this example will communicate what I’m talking about. At a youth tournament ( we are blessed to have wannabe grass where you can move the bases and portable mounds to any dimension) with R-1 and R-2 and zero outs a batter struck a sharp ground ball off the side of one of these portable mounds, and the ball ricocheted off the mound and struck the field umpire, and then went into right centerfield. The ball never touched the pitcher. I knew instantly the ball was dead and the batter must be awarded first base. Umpire interference. ( umpire is positioned on the inside of the diamond) That meant R-1 & R-2 must be returned to their time of pitch bases. My field umpire never called time and never called interference. I waited for him to make the proper call because I did not want to embarrass him. Since both runners came all the way home the coach thought he had two runs score. He was not happy and argued the call, and amazingly my field umpire argued with the coach against me, his partner. That’s a tough moment for an umpire when the coach and your “ partner” are both arguing with you. I of course stuck with the correct call and told my assignor never ever would I work again with this umpire. Umpires are quitting and aging. The umpire shortage is at a crisis level. A recent Referee magazine has an article on the issue. Back to the R.L.I. The old saying was- runner, you take the foul side of the base- fielder, you take the fair side of the base. When the foul line went down the middle of the base it was difficult for umpires to call a sharp ground ball over the base fair or foul. There were collisions at first base so the base was placed in foul territory. It’s a simple rule - run in the lane and then exit the lane in your last stride to the base. Hope you are well and have a great baseball season.
I think it's a rule that needs to be changed. How I'm not sure. Turner hustled his butt off running to first in a straight line and it looks like he was already safe when the contact occurred. Seems to me the runner's lane penalizes the batter runner cause it causes the runner to change his momentum
Your commentary is condescending and (incidentally) wrong! You distort the MLB rule in your paraphrase. The rule does not require the runner to be called out whenever he has run outside the runner's lane and interferes with the catch at first. The rule requires the umpire to **make a judgment ** as to whether the runner has interfered with the play at first **in running outside the lane**. That judgment is the source of the controversy here. The runner is entitled to be in fare territory at the base, where he impacted the catch at first. As a result, the team argues, he did not interfere with the play **in running outside the lane** - he impacted the play by stepping on first base, as he was entitled. He is not out by this rule: the batter is safe at first, and the runners advance on a live ball. Go back to the rule, highlight the words "in the umpire's judgment in so doing," and re-examine your smugness. Many thanks to Anthony Rendon - ball don't lie, bitch.
You're wrong here and this video is correct. At no time did he enter the runners lane and therefore is not protected in the last step to the base which is entirely in fair territory. Among those who study and teach baseball rules at the higher levels, this instance is not even close to a debate. No well trained umpire would call the runner safe here (based on the replay). He was out and it is very clear based on the rules. If people don't like it, they need to change the rules. Thanks for the comment. And you're right, I did come off as smug in this video, but this is MLB. You'd think the managers would know the rules...and maybe he did and chose to argue it the way he did for other reasons? I completely understand why the player didn't know the rules. They are great with 95% of them, but they don't umpire, they play, so that last 5% takes a lot of time and study to nail down.
@@MJHBaseball As in the video, you still don't address the text of the rule; rather, you conjure nameless "well-trained umpires" and people who "study" the rules as your support. The rule calls for a judgment by the umpire. A judgment as to what? As to whether the runner interfered with the fielder *in running outside the lane*. That's the critical significance of the phrase "in so doing" in the text of the rule - it requires that, for the runner to be called out, his running outside the lane must have caused the interference at the base. This is the part of the rule at issue in the play, and this is the part of the rule missing in your video's analysis. You repeat that Turner and Martinez do not know the rule. But there is a better, more generous explanation: they understand the rule and dispute the judgment of causation made by the umpire. It is fair to disagree with Turner and Martinez and concur in the umpire's judgment. It is a "judgment call," after all. But to insist that anyone who doesn't concur in your judgment doesn't know the rule? That is shortsighted egotism.
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11): "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." OBR 5.09(a)(11) Comment 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." Be advised that a runner must be within the lane in order to exit it. It is physically impossible to exit something that one has never been in. The judgement on whether Turner interfered with the first baseman's ability to take the throw seems mute. It's plain to anyone that he did. Since it's so obvious that this was interference, it would seem obvious that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't know the rule. So I can certainly consider rewording things in the future, but I do stand by the belief that this is no less obvious a call than a "judgment call" as to whether a runner is thrown out on a 6-3 that beats him by 2 feet. That is a judgment call too, but is it really?
@@MJHBaseball The question is not just whether Turner interfered with the first baseman's ability to take the throw. Turner is out if he runs outside the lane "and in the umpire's judgment **in so doing** interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." If these words ("in so doing") were not in the rule, your interpretation would probably be correct. But by including this clause, the rule (wisely) instructs the umpire to judge whether the runner interfered with the first baseman **by failing to run in the lane**. If the interference was not caused by the runner's failure to run in the lane, the rule does not apply, by its own terms. The comment is not instructive here. It makes clear that a runner who uses the lane, but exits to step on first base, should not be called out under this rule for interference in failing to use the lane. No one is claiming that Turner is safe for this reason. I appreciate your willingness to have this exchange. It doesn't seem we are likely to reach a consensus on this point, but I am happy to disagree respectfully. It is much preferred to the dismissiveness of your video.
The Trea Turner play is famous because of its recency, but with the throw pulling the first baseman and the glove/catch into the basepath, looked OK to me and it was a bad call. Meh. As a Nationals fan, God bless Anthony Rendon.
That doesn't matter. He interfered with the fielder receiving the catch. Before or after he reaches the base is irrelevant. If you want to award him a single and then call him out for the interference, be my guest.
Explain, by showing the verbage of the rule, that both of these plays are actually interference. I still fail to see any fundamental difference. You do not have to run if the out of bounds Lane in order to get protection from interference. Interference occurs anytime a runner's path is interfere with as long as he's within a reasonable distance of the direct Baseline. The only time that the runner's path can be any farther than several feet from a direct line between the bases is when you've overrun first base and you proceed to second. That has been be functional rule of interfering with a runner since time immemorial! If we're going to go to an assumption that a reasonably thrown ball should be caught for a reasonable effort to catch the ball would have caught the ball, then we're going to have to go ahead and Rule Runners out at first even when the catcher does not catch a well-thrown ball. I say this because when a third baseman is running at Full Tilt out into the middle of left field to catch a ball and they call an infield fly rule with the ball isn't anywhere near the Enfield. Which is why it's called an infield fly rule not an outfield fly rule even if an infielder catches it. If you're going to call that under the infield fly rule then if he had missed the ball because it hit his glove and fell out of it or he misjudged it and it fell and hit his shoulder, and they still call the infield fly rule even though we missed the ball. You're making an assumption of fact that isn't so. Play the game by how the ball is handled or mishandled. But not by the incident of what the runner could not see from behind him. Interference is an intentional Act. If the runner were running in bounds by 2 or 3 ft I could understand it. But not when he's running on the base path where he freaking belongs. This is like that stupid rule that if you're a batter and you're in the batter's box where you're supposed to be. And you don't get out of the way of the catcher trying to make a throw to second base. It's a stupid rule. The catcher knows where the battery is before he tries to make the throw. I can fully understand if the batter were to move closer to the line which the catcher might wish to throw, but as long as he stands still in the batter's box there should be no such thing as interference with the play as long as he's where he belongs. One other one, some years ago a runner coming around Third Base decided to run 12 ft pass 3rd Base in order to run into the third base coach. The moron behind the plate that for some reason somebody calls an umpire called interference with the runner. There is no reason to be 12 foot outside the base path when you're turning from second Crossing 3rd going home. I was a world-class Runner when I was in high school. I never got over 6 feet out of the direct Baseline, ever. Cite the rule, quit giving us your opinion. I want to hear what the rule actually States. The other rule that is rarely enforced is if you slide past second base and lose contact with the bag you're automatically out so is the runner going to first.
What a great explanation. I’m in my 41st year of coaching, currently at the high school level, and the things I hate the most is youth coaches, at every level that act like they know a rule, when they clearly don’t, as well as running on a field and loudly protesting. You have an opportunity to call time and talk to the umpire in a respectful way. I can’t tell you the calls that have been overturned by remaining calm, being respectful, asking the umpire why they made the call they did, and stating your case or rule. If you do know the rule and the umpire does not, or interprets it in a way that does not favor your team, move on. In two weeks no one will remember. In two years no one will care.
may i nominate you for coaching sainthood? i'll make up the forms...
@@cloudwatcher724 , ha ha Thank you Steve, I needed the laugh. I think in text, my post may sound a little like grandstanding.
I tell people that I know I’m not the smartest guy in the room, even when I’m by myself, but I’m still trying to be a better person.
@@SThompsonRAMM_1203 well, you're off to a hell of a start... in my humble opinion...
@@cloudwatcher724 , I really appreciate you. Seriously, you have made my day.
I have had a blessed life involving coaching and youth sports in general.
So many great memories and I’m still seeing the rewards of kids I coached well over 30 years ago.
I’m a lucky man.
Well done, MJH. Good explanations, nice visuals, and quite thorough.
During one our games last week one of our kids shouted from the outfield during a disputed call "do you need to pull up MJH baseball?"
Haha
Get off my lawn, you little s4!7!
Another good one MJH. And thanks for give some love to those other channels.
Second use for runner's lane: a little measure (for your mind) for rounding first.
Now that makes more sense for me, I was confused which line player can run , now I know, thank you
Great explanation! Its so frustrating to watch an MLB game where the announcers are so clueless about the rules. I think so much controversy could have been avoided in that WS game if the announcers knew what they were talking about.
Those kids are playing in a kitty litter box..
It is beyond me why baseball does not institute the double bag at 1B like softball does. It eliminates so many controversies and basically forces the runner to run in the lane. I can't ever remember having to make an out call for lane interference when a double bag was being used.
Excellent explanation
4:15 the corollary to this: if a batter does this to you and bets that you won't peg him in the back with the baseball, do it. the batter is betting on the fact that he can use your politeness against you. it's not unclassy to peg in this situation. it's fair game. it doesn't have to be as hard as you can muster. just swift enough to make sure you can throw it at him accurately and in time to make the play.
Just because the rulebook says one thing doesn't make it not a BS call. Trea Turner should be able to run in a straight line to the base. Runners should be able to run in the lane created by home plate to 1B.
i agree with this 1000000%, while i understand the rule...it does not make sense all the time...
This exact thing happened to me yesterday. I beat the throw but his glove was over the base. I ended up running into his glove knocking out the ball and went to 2nd.
No need to act like a fool....best line of the whole video. #westregion #umpire #knowtherules
As soon as you step on a baseball diamond wearing shorts you are a fool.
This situation is one reason why teams like a left-handed first baseman if they can get them. But coaches should also use this as an opportunity to teach their catchers and first basemen how to communicate. Usually, depending on where the ball is, the catcher will call “outside” or “inside” to let the first baseman where he is throwing the ball. It will often be “outside” (or to the foul side of the bag) if the catcher is retrieving a dropped third strike in foul territory.
It’s a good idea to include this in a practice. This obviously doesn’t apply in Little League, where the rule doesn’t permit a batter to attempt to advance to first on a dropped third strike (unless that rule has changed). But it’s a good idea for that next level up, on a full sized diamond.
Bear in mind, in many leagues, there is no runners alley marked on the field at all, and that is going to make it more difficult for an umpire. We were often fortunate if we had a field with a foul line marked. That often makes it difficult for the runner to identify or find the runner’s lane when there are no lines at all.
It’s not difficult to visualize a 45 ft. running lane. If you don’t have foul lines marked then you have serious league issues. Chalk is cheap.
it is a good point. however, it takes a very well-disciplined team to execute this properly. can't tell you how many times i've seen a catcher yelling "inside!" or "outside!" three or four times, all the time holding the ball, then try to nolan ryan a perfect throw to first. say it once, then step and throw. why make an easy play difficult? of course, i'm just the umpire...
5:35 coach puts his hand on the umpire and doesn't get ejected?
Efficient Lawn Maintenance LLC interesting observation, how did u notice that small detail
depends on the circumstances and nature of the touch... I'm not likely even think about ejecting for what is seen in the video.
Efficient Lawn Maintenance LLC he didn’t get ejected because he didn’t try throwing him around he just put his hand on his shoulder. Nothing wrong with that right?
Depends on the relationship: in youth ball a lot of these guys are friends off the field. We often got umped by our catcher's father, who was best friends with our coach. The upside of that is that the team got a rules clinic at every practice and the coach could have a good conversation when the ump got it wrong (which was pretty rare): the downside being that the ump would call harder on us because he didn't want anyone thinking there was any favoritism.
This advice doesn’t apply in games played under NFHS (high school) rules. A bad throw caused by a runner who is out of the lane can be called out for interference. Unlike OBR (Official Baseball Rules), a quality throw is not required.
i'm curious how, as an umpire, you would define (and defend) a "bad" throw. in my opinion, a quality throw that is impeded a batter/runner who is NOT in the runner's lane makes it a lot easier call to sell. if the catcher "sails" the throw and then whines, as a plate umpire, i got nothin'. it's similar to a catcher who is attempting to throw out a runner stealing a base, sees the batter in the way, and holds his throw. a defensive player who completes a quality play deserves every call the rule book will give them. go chefs.
@@cloudwatcher724 Let's say a batter bunts the ball in front of the plate that is fielded by the catcher. The batter-runner is completely out of the running lane, in fair territory. The catcher sails the ball of the first baseman's head.
RULING:
MLB - Too bad. Learn how to throw a baseball. Play on. Had it hit the batter-runner, that would be different.
High School - Dead ball. Interference! Batter-runner is out.
@@DavidEmerling79 i would (respectfully) make a different call in your high school example. it might not be by the letter of the law/nfhs-wise, but i'm never going to reward a bad throw. side note: i'd LOVE to be in the stands when you make this call. i'd help the law enforcement escort you off the field at the end of the game... have a great weekend.
@@cloudwatcher724 As a high school umpire, you would then be making the wrong call. And, lots of people would know that you've made the wrong call - especially your partner. There are *lots* of high school rules I disagree with. This is probably one of them. But I don't have the luxury of calling the game with my own, personal style. I've been calling high school games for nearly 30 years. I just shrug my shoulders and call the games as our state association mandates. If the teams don't like it - their beef isn't with me.
For instance, in high school, if the pitcher balks, the ball is immediately dead. Not so in "regular" baseball. If the pitcher balks and still delivers the ball to the batter, and the batter jacks the ball over the outfield fence, the balk is ignored and the home run stands. Not in high school. No pitch. No home run. Dumb? Yes! But calling it any other way is against the rules.
I know it not up to the coach but if they had a copy of the rule book in cases where umpires screw up. stay safe and healthy everyone
most umpires will automatically eject a coach for pulling a rule book out of their pocket; its considered to be showing up the umpire.
Does this only apply at first base? How are calls made for plays for example from 1st to 2nd?
The quality throw does NOT apply to high school. NFHS role is that a throw must be made. No words about quality.
NFHS 8-4-1-g
The batter-runner is out when
(g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.
This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.
The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.
Umping a girl's softball game, I called a runner out because she ran to the left of the line and obstructed the view of the first base fielder as the throw came from the catcher. Needless to say the Manager couldn't believe my call. He said I've NEVER seen that call made. As an umpire you don't go out there with the intent of making ticky tack bullshit calls, but this one was a no brainer.
how was the throw?
@@direcorbie I'm curious what the rules are there, here's what I could find via the NCAA
"2.28 Runner’s Lane
The runner’s lane is the area that is the last half of the distance between home plate and first base where a batter-runner must run to avoid interfering with a fielder’s attempt to receive a thrown ball. It is bounded by a 30-foot line drawn in foul territory parallel to and 3 feet from the first base line, starting at a point halfway between home plate and the back edge of first base. If the infield is skinned, it is recommended the runner’s lane be skinned."
"12.5.5 When either of her feet is completely outside the runner’s lane, in contact with the ground, and, in the judgment of the umpire, she interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Exceptions: She may run outside the runner’s lane: (1) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner’s lane; (2) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (3) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base."
so based on that, she would be in violation if she wasn't in the lane and interfered with the fielder at 1st receiving the throw so pretty identical to MLB rules regarding that
4:29 - "if the pitcher's throw bounces before reaching the fielder on first, then it's not interference."
This is absolutely wrong as a blanket statement. Bouncing the throw does not, by itself, in any way diminish the likelihood or validity of calling interference for running lane violation. The only criteria is if the throw could reasonably have retired the runner, and the runner out of the lane interfered with fielding the throw. if it's a bad throw that was unlikely to result in an out absent the interference, then interference should not be called because the runner didn't interfere with anything. Some ugly bounces may make the throw extremely difficult to field, which would thus tend to eliminate interference, but it's absolutely wrong to just say "if it bounces, then it's not interference". This is one of many cases where umpire gotta umpire.
I will agree with you that it's possible on a long hop that this could still be interference. I just never ever saw one and can't imagine it ever occurring. That being said. Little League is always the place you find the absurd and unimaginable actually happening. A short hop can't be considered ordinary effort for this play in my judgement. Obviously not an in-between hop.
@@MJHBaseball umpire gotta umpire, but the gist of most interpretations is to give deference to the defense on RLI (i.e. if the runner is out of the lane and things go bad, we should be calling RLI unless there's a clear reason not to). that's another point I disagree with you on: the running lane rule is absolutely not for the runner; it's 100% for the defense.
Official Baseball Rules (MLB) has an official interpretation that requires the throw to 1st to be a "quality" throw before the batter-runner can be guilty of a running lane violation. In other words, the throw to the fielder receiving the throw at 1st must be direct and catchable. For a football analogy: The defense is never called for pass interference if the pass is uncatchable.
If the throw to 1st hits the runner (who is out of the lane) and, in the umpire's opinion, the throw may not have been catchable by the first baseman, no interference will be called. A throw that hits the ground would probably not be considered a "quality throw."
You won't find this in the rule book. It's an official interpretation. Those are "rules" that umpires are required to know that amplify rules that are in the rule book that may not address every possible situation. Umpires are expected to apply these official interpretations for consistency.
High School rules (NFHS) has a completely different official interpretation in this regard. A quality throw is *not* required. For instance, if the batter-runner is out of the lane, and the catcher air mails the ball well over the first baseman's head in attempt to avoid hitting the runner - the runner would be called out for interference because the runner *affected* the play at 1st.
@@DavidEmerling79 I like what you posted except a batter/ runner out of the lane being struck with a throw. That’s an out every time.
@@rayray4192 You're probably right because a throw that hits the runner could probably have been caught by the fielder at 1st. However, another interpretation is that the throw must originate from the area BEHIND the running lane. For example: PLAY: The batter hits a grounder up the middle that is fielded by the shortstop near the area of 2nd base. He has to make a quick, off balance throw to retire the batter-runner. The throw is off target and pulls the 1st baseman to his left. The runner, running out of the lane, collides with the first baseman who moved into the runner's path. The first baseman does not make the catch. That cannot be a running lane violation. That doesn't mean that the batter-runner could not be called out for interference if, in the umpire's opinion, he did something INTENTIONAL to interfere with the first baseman's opportunity to catch the throw - but it wouldn't be a running lane violation, it would be just regular interference, if anything.
The rule for high school has no bearing on if the throw is good or not. It's very simple in high school if you are not in the runners lane then any play made to first regardless of the throw the batter runner is out and all other runners return to base occupied at time of pitch
let's see, I googled this and verified this
"NFHS 8-4-1-g
The batter-runner is out when
(g) he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.
This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."
Three criteria: 1). Is the runner not in the lane (except to avoid a protected fielder)? 2) Is the reason the throw was not completed was because the runner was not in the lane? 3). Was the throw a quality throw? Especially in LL but even in the pros you rarely get all three criteria. Thus it’s usually a no-call. So when it happens most people are clueless.
The quality throw part is a major league and NCAA thing. NHS, high school, does NOT have a quality throw addition. So I'm assuming little league doesn't either.
I question the statement about one hoppers as all first baseman should reasonable handle them. Especially long throws from deep short/third are reasonably caught when one hopped.
A long hop from an outfielder maybe. And good first baseman should catch most of the hops. But when it comes to this call, the same rule applies to "reasonable effort" that applies to assigning errors. For example, if the shortstop throws a ball to first base that bounces before it reaches first base and the first baseman probably should have caught it, the error is still assigned to the shortstop because the rule for assigning an error in that situation is that if the ball it's the ground first then it's the error of the person throwing it. So in our play, if the thrown ball hits the ground before reaching the 1st baseman, the umpire should never call the runner out on runner lane interference.
@@MJHBaseball actually 6.05 (j) your protecting the fielder taking the throw and if your fielder can/should catch the single hop then it's an out. Reset other runners
Also, teach your catcher to bean the runner that's not in the lane. That gets him out and solves the problem in the future, too.
Cool video. Do you happen to have the 2014 LLWS consolation game (3rd place)?
I have most of the Nevada games except that one. I even have most of their regional games.
@@MJHBaseball Do you have the world championship or is that considered international too?
We used to do this growing up. We were taught that when you hit the ball, like a bunt, and you knew there was no way to get to first, to run just inside the lane to try to make the catcher or pitcher misthrow the ball.
We were also taught to throw the ball at the numbers of any runner running inside the lane to first. I can't tell you the number of runners I have gunned down as a pitcher or catcher.
We were forced to protest numerous games for umpires not knowing the rules, and won most of the protests. The only ones we lost were city league games where the umpires are more often than not just not professional umpires. Nothing against them, but they just didn't have the knowledge.
Your training was wrong and unsportsmanlike
@@rayray4192 why? The runners lane is there to protect the runner. If he eschews that protection, and gets beaned, whose fault is that?
@@gregbutler5521 it’s absolutely the fault of the batter/ runner if he runs out of the running lane, but protecting the batter/ runner is not the intention of the running lane rule. Read the rule. Historically and today the purpose of the running lane rule is to assure the fielder at first base has a fair chance to field a throw from the plate area. You should be able to figure it out by simply reading the rule. The rule gives absolutely no consideration to the batter/ runner. The rule simply explains a batter/ runner places himself in jeopardy of having interference called upon him if he runs outside the lane and interferes with a fielder at first base receiving a throw from the home plate area, but the rule was never intended to help a batter/ runner; it’s all about helping the defense. And when you start a post off with a one word question ( Why?), I don’t know what you are asking. I guess you are asking why the rule doesn’t protect the batter/ runner. Read the rule and the way the text reads. It’s all about protecting the defense. All trained umpires know this. MJH is not an umpire. His perspective is that of a coach. He’s trying to instruct coaches how to coach. The running lane is on the field to give players instruction where to run but that’s very different than stating the R.L.R. is about protecting a batter/ runner.
@@rayray4192 I’m asking what is unsportsmanlike about that guys training.
@@gregbutler5521 still an inability to communicate. Why make me guess what you are asking? Are you talking about drilling a batter/ runner with a throw?
With 38 years umpiring softball and baseball, I've called a Runner's Lane Violation TWICE.
Not doing your job uh?
Retired crew chief Tim Tishida saw it
called 10 times in a 26 year career. An ejection occurred in all 10 occurrences. Managers do not understand the rule. Nationals manager Dave Martinez was ejected from game 6 of the World Series 15 minutes after the call, and that was after his batter hit a home run after the call. He acted like a petulant child and a maniac. It’s really hard to get ejected out of a World Series game.
What about the bat being thrown onto the field of play and interfering with the catchers ability to field the ball?
Completely off subject. If your bat interferes with a catcher fielding a batted ball it’s immediate time out and interference. Batter is out and all runners return to their time of pitch base.
The fact they don't use a double bag boggles my mind.
When I was working college baseball, the Ohio Athletic Conference (OAC) used double bags....it made our job so, so much easier. I doubt they still do it.
@@buckeyebryan10 , in Oregon, many youth programs below the high school level still use them at the beginning of the season, obviously for safety reasons, and remove them later in the season.
It’s hard ball. All cry babies should stay home. Baseball players west cups and don’t need two first base bags.
The problem with the 45 foot lane is, it is not the fastest route to 1st base for a right-handed batter like Trea Turner.
What does that matter, it's only a few inches. The 45 foot rule is a GREAT rule despite the ignorant people who commented here on RUclips that it was a terrible rule and will be overturned. I said back then, and repeat it now, it's a great rule because as MJH says, it protects the runner from being called out for interference as long as he runs in that lane. Going to any other base, a runner who is running away from the play, CANNOT see the throw to get out of the way, but, if the ball hits him, it is interference. This is a VERY fair rule.
@@marmac2768 not true on anly base but first, if a thrown ball hits a runner going to any base there is no out unless it is first in which he has a runner lane violation.
@@matthewfarrell8233 On plays involving baserunners (other than batter-runner on his way to first base), what if the umpire judges that the baserunner intentionally interferes with fielding a thrown ball? I think OBR distinguishes between unintentional and intentional baserunner interference at any base. Intentional interference is penalized.
@@marmac2768 really Marty? Reading your past comments on other videos, I thought you were an umpire. A runner hit by a thrown ball is interference? come on
So what? Overcome adversity. Petulant child Turner hit a buck fifty as a lead off hitter in the World Series. He hit a swinging bunt and ran illegally to first base and then bitched and whined. He was out.
The ignorance of MLB managers is a joke. Maybe they should be required to pass a test on the rules before they're allowed on the field.
I love ya, MJH, but I have to partially disagree with you on this one, at least applying this rule to high school and NFHS. Section 4-1-g reads: a batter of out when
g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base
1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.
There is room in there for umpire judgement as to whether a poor throw was the result of the runner outside the lane or not. A poor throw alone does not does not negate possible interference. A catcher/pitcher that has been taught properly to see where the batter runner is will throw the ball at the batter runner’s back when they see the batter runner is inside the line.
So if he's not running in the lane, nail him in the back with the throw.
It really blew me away how many people, experienced umpires included, thought that the Turner call in the World Series was a bad call. It also infuriates me that these PROFESSIONAL baseball people, the runner and the manager, comes out there screaming that it was a bad call when they ought to know the rule and know they blew it!!
It really was NOT that difficult of a call to make. REALLY!!
It just feels like a bad rule. Why does he magically get protection from stepping into this box then out of it, when he's at the exact same point when the interference occurs? What if one step had happened on the baseline before he got hit? Is that enough to get magical protection? Or does he need to be inside the two lines for the entire stretch up to this "magical point" where he can safely deviate? I could see the argument for CAUSING a bad throw by being in a different place before, but when the problem occurs when he's in a place where he's allowed to be SOMETIMES, it just feels like a bad rule.
Not saying the umps got it wrong. But it's a very weird rule.
@@grife3000 This rule has been in baseball from it very beginnings. It was put in place to protect the batter runner. In all other cases, a runner is not allowed to interfere with the fielder taking the throw. The batter runner is the one most likely to do so, due to running in a mostly straight line to first base. If this rule was not there, anytime a throw that could reasonably be caught to get the runner out hits the runner, no matter where he is, the runner is out. Originally, baseball had two first bases, one in fair territory, and one in foul territory. When they eliminated the extra bag, they put into the rule the allowance to go into fair territory on his last few steps.
@@grife3000 because 1st base is entirely in fair territory.
@@billrobelen4948 wrong. First base was originally in fair and foul territory. The foul line went down the middle of the base. It was changed around 1885. And the R.L.I. rule has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the offense. The rule is in place to protect a fielder attempting to field a throw from the plate area.
@@billrobelen4948 baseball has never used two first base bags. All batter: runners are protected from interference in their last stride into first base if they have exited the running lane to touch first base. You vinyl exit a lane you were never in.
This might be a dumb question, but the runner in the example beat the throw, so is it still interference?
Trey Turner did not beat the throw. He knocked the first baseman’s glove off and then whined and bitched like a petulant child, and then he mocked hall of fame player and manager Joe Torre.
Beating the throw is irrelevant, all that matters is whether 1. the runner was in the runner's lane and if no then 2. did the batter-runner interfere with the fielder at 1st receiving the throw? if 1. was no and 2. is yes then he's out for interference no matter what, doesn't matter whether he beat the throw or not
and a side note: notice how out of position the little league umpire is (at 3:42 and others showing the same play) compared to the higher leagues. in fact, the plate umpire on the trea turner play couldn't BE in better position. the strong tendency for young/inexperienced (or just lazy) plate umpires to drift behind and to one side of the plate into foul territory (i guess because they think they have no responsibilities or potential calls) should be addressed immediately and often. it's one of those no-brainers that makes it obvious to everyone how serious you are about being a good/better umpire.
The throw can be poor due to the Runner being out of the lane in both NCAA and NFHS. OBR the throw must be a good one.
Could you post a rule for NCAA or NFHS that supports this? It would be news to me that this is the case, but I am no expert either.
MJH-Baseball of course. 7-11-P NCAA
In running the last half of the distance from home plate to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, the batter-runner runs outside the 3-foot restraining line or inside the foul line and, in so doing, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, except that the batter may go outside these lines to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
Note 1: If the batter-runner is running illegally to first base and his being outside the lane alters the throw of a fielder, hinders or alters a fielder’s opportunity to field the throw, or the batter-runner is hit by the throw that has been made in an attempt to make a play, it shall be called interference and the batter-runner is to be called out.
@@MJHBaseball “ A runner is out when he runs outside the three foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. N.F.H.S. 2022 rule book. It’s a terrible rule book written by bureaucrats. It’s rule 8-4-1- (G). It’s vague and does not address the issue of quality of throw. 8-4-1-(G) The 2022 Federation case book doesn’t even apply to running lane interference. 8-4-1-(G) It’s common knowledge that high school players are students who should not be hitting batter/ runners in the back, neck, or helmet with a throw, so R.L.I. should be called when the fielder throws poorly to avoid striking the batter/ runner. As Dave J stated, umpires must umpire- if the throw is 10 feet over the fielder’s head and sails into the right field corner I’m probably not calling R.L.I.
@@MJHBaseball it’s been one year and you haven’t edited your video. You start the video out incorrectly. R.L.I. has nothing to do with protecting a batter: runner. Sure, if a batter/ runner runs in the lane and makes no extra ordinary movements he’s safe from being called out for R.L.I. but it’s not the purpose of the rule. Consider editing your video.
my issue with the rule comes from the fact that base runners and batters are supposed to take a direct line to the base. Right handed batters are disadvantaged in this situation because they have to run a curve to 1st (even if it's a slight curve), instead of a straight line like lefties get in order to stay in the running lane. So why under every single other rule, the runner must take a direct line, but when it's a right handed batter they have to run a curve?
run in a straight line directly out of the batter's box that takes you to the exact point where the runner's lane begins. then continue in a straight line directly on the fair/foul line. as long as either foot (but preferably both) is touching or inside the baseline, the runner is considered inside the runner's lane. this is never as difficult as people make it sound. never. it's simply a matter of practice and choice.
Here’s the solution: hit a line drive in the gap and stand on second base like a stud. Roberto Clemente comes to mind. Tre Turner hit .160 as a lead off hitter in the World Series and then bitched because it’s illegal to run out of the running lane. The defense deserves the protection.
There is no rule that a runner must run in a straight line. It’s a myth. If a runner is being played upon ( a tag attempt) in a run down he establishes his base path ( not a base line) when a defender tries to tag him. That base path is a straight line between bases advancing or retreating. Even then he can move three feet away from the straight line to avoid a tag.
@@cloudwatcher724 good word except both feet must be within the running lane. The lines marking the lane are part of the lane.
@@rayray4192 so noted. i forgot the wording to this rule was changed somewhere in the mid-2010's (if memory serves) to make it more restrictive on the runner. i like the current wording.
3:33 - you list the "misconception" that interference can/should be called if the runner interferes with the throw. This is actually the NFHS accepted interpretation of their running lane rule:
"8-4-1g: The batter-runner is out if... he runs outside the 3-foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or *thrown* to first base"
"(1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a *throw.*
"
(emphasis added)
This is very different from the OBR & LL rule; I don't know about NCAA personally, I'm not that cool yet, but I see from another comment down below that the NCAA rule is more like NFHS and includes the throw as well. So between NFHS, NCAA, and the fact that many HS-age tournaments, summer leagues, etc. use NFHS rules, quite a lot of baseball is played wherein RLI can/will be called based on the throw.
I've heard tell that some NFHS umpire instructors have interpreted the rule to mean that the throw doesn't matter at all, the catcher could just throw it into the air or into the dugout and still get the call; this seems ridiculous, and certainly in my state unit it's not interpreted or applied that way. We expect there to be a throw in the direction of 1B that appears to be a reasonable attempt to retire the runner; the catcher can't just point at the runner say "blue, he's out of the lane, get him!" or throw it completely wild with no intent to retire the runner, and we need to be able to make a judgment that interference occurred. However we definitely will call it on the throw: if the runner is roughly between the fielder and 1B, and we have any indication the fielder made a poor throw attempting to avoid hitting the runner out of the lane (i.e. wide throw, rainbow toss over the runner, or side-arm leaning throw, that sort of thing), that's definitely going to be called.
I admit I am not familiar with the NFHS rules and I REALLY appreciate you pointing those out, not just for me, but for others reading your comment. The more I learn about the High School rules, the less likely I am to want to ever umpire them. Unfortunately, some tournaments in youth baseball use the NFHS rules and it pains me to know any balk is going to be immediately a dead ball. That obstruction is handled different. And examples just keep coming.
@@MJHBaseball interesting that you mention the dead ball balk... nfhs just sent out their end-of-season coach/umpire survey about rules for next season, and one of the questions asked is if they ought to go to a live balk. I said yes. Doesn't mean it will happen, but it's clearly on their list to talk about.
That's not quite the whole rule.
8.4.1g(1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.
So he does have to judge interference because if there is none he ignores the infraction.
@@gil4321 damn, I read 8.4.1g(1), got to the part about avoiding a fielder in the act of fielding and said "yes, that's obvious, everyone knows that" and skipped to 8.4.1g(2). reading every word is critical; it didn't make sense for the rule not to require interference, but some FED rules are a bit overbroad and I'd heard a lot of crazy things about this rule.... I think I need to heavily edit my comment; I don't mind being shown to have made a mistake in reading the rule (though what I say about how it's actually called is correct), but I've really got some inaccurate info there I don't want someone else to go wrong with. So yeah, anyone reading this later, yeah, my original post has been heavily edited, gil4321's comment was very correct that I missed something...
@@MJHBaseball I heavily edited my comment above, as gil4321 correctly pointed out I'd missed something in reading the rule which explained why the rule text didn't seem to match the way it's called - it matched just fine actually.
If the runner remains "in the lane", and very, _very_ obviously _purposely_ interferes by turning his head and reaching out with his left hand to "swat" or grab the first-baseman's glove so he can't possibly catch the ball, he _is_ out, right? Even though he was entirely in the runner's lane?
Yes. That is intentional interference and it's an out regardless of where the runner is including going to other bases. Just think of Alex Rodrigues in the 2004 ACLS. Search "2004ALCS Gm6: A-Rod slaps ball from Arroyo's glove" That's intentional interference, Alex is out and anyone on base returns to the base they were on at the time of the pitch.
@@MJHBaseballwrong, but thanks for playing. The running lane is designed to protect the defense. Baseball is a defensive game.
In this video, he says, "The runner's lane is there to protect the runner. That is its purpose. It's not there to protect the fielder." That is completely incorrect!
Protect the runner from what??? In fact, it's just the opposite. The purpose of the running lane is to allow the fielder receiving the throw at 1st base from having to deal with a batter-runner blocking the throw or blocking his vision of the throw. The lane is there to help the fielders!
Of course, they are widening the running lane for beginning with the 2024 season. This is one of new rules. The running lane will now be slightly extended into foul territory, up to the point where the infield grass begins. This expansion of the lane would cause many of the example plays in this video as legal on the part of the batter-runner.
The running lane was always a bit biased against right-handed hitters because, if you draw a straight line from the right-handed batter's box to 1st base, the entire trek is in fair territory - which is out of the running lane. Consequently, right-handed batters have to make a somewhat awkward turn to the right in order to get within the confines of the lane, something left-handed batters seldom have to do.
A few years back in high school my left hand batting daughter laid down a bunt before the catcher could make a throw the umpire called my daughter out, she took 3 small steps about a foot inside the line then on the line the rest of the way, was this a correct call
On the foul line is fair territory. Technically to be in the "runner's lane" you need to be in foul territory, so not on the line. BUT, she can't be called out if the catcher does not throw. Chances are your daughter had a foot on the ground outside of the batter's box when the bat contacted the ball on the bunt. This is very common in softball. If this was high school, it's unlikely the umpire didn't know the rules. Without seeing the play, I can only offer a guess.
@@MJHBaseball thanks for the quick reply, we worked hard to get her bunts down correctly, its possible she was outside the batters box ,but his explanation to the coach was she started off running to far inside the lane, not in the grass but enough for it to not allow the catcher to make a proper throw to first, which the catcher never had time to even throw before the out was called, we chalked up to experience, once again thanks for the quick reply
@@davidr9576 you can run wherever you want before the running lane. You can run wherever you want past the start of the running lane as long as you don’t interfere.
@@davidr9576 it was a blown call. Terrible umpiring.
I think this is a rule that needs to be looked at and possibly changed. One thing I really don't like in sports is when a rule technicality results in an outcome different from what realistically "should" have happened. In this case, Turner beat throw, ran a direct path to first from the right handed batters box, was hit with the ball as he was directly in front of the bag and was only hit because the throw was off the mark. I understand that by the definition of the rule he is out, but that is definitely against what common sense makes one think the outcome should be.
@Black Bear Did you even read my comment? I said I understand the call was correct based on the rule, it's the rule I have a problem with. This is a situation where the enforcement of a rule results in an outcome that logically doesn't seem like what it should be. The call was made correctly under the rulebook, I just feel that this particular rule, as written, can potentially result in game changing plays that logically seem like they should go the other way.
@Black Bear my issue with the rule comes from the fact that base runners and batters are supposed to take a direct line to the base. Right handed batters are disadvantaged in this situation because they have to run a curve to 1st (even if it's a slight curve), instead of a straight line like lefties get in order to stay in the running lane. So why under every single other rule, the runner must take a direct line, but when it's a right handed batter they have to run a curve?
Trey ran in fair territory to gain an advantage. He knew what he was doing. He did it right. He knows that the ump made the right call also. It didn’t work that time. I’ll wager that he got on base safely doing the same thing previously.
@Black Bear I agree, and I don’t at the same time.
In beginner baseball (Little League) we were taught to run in the foul territory running lane. That is if your coach was worth his salt. Most kids will run on the outer edge of that lane so they don’t get plunked. Even in Little League there are some kids that will run to the inner edge of the lane on that bunt, or nubber hit. Those are your all-stars, they understand the game because they are coached up. They are also the guys that make the high school team. By then the bunt is a sacrifice you are going to be out a high percentage of the time. As you climb the ladder like D1 now you are playing against all district and the “Mr. Baseball “ type of guys. The chances of getting on base on that type of hit reduce to almost never, so to gain an edge the runner will veer a bit closer and even into fair territory. He knows he’s outside the running lane. Hoping the fielder goofs up. Top rung baseball, he did it right. He took a chance and failed. By then 99/100 you’re out.
@Black Bear Oh, I get it now, wasn’t aware of the runner situation. Yeah he screwed the pooch.
My league is so cheap no runners lane
No, it's there. It's just not marked with chalk or paint. That goes on the person marking the field.
Should use the double base at first.
Hard ball players don’t need no stinkin double first base.
The only problem with this video was you saying all runners return based on "time of pitch". That is NOT always the case. Example: R3, no outs. Suicide squeeze play. R3 safe at home, then the throw to 1B which results in RLI penalty. Under this situation, the run would count, BR would be out for RLI. Next play is 1 out, nobody on.
i ump minor ball aka little luege. we dont know everything our clinics srnt great
I'm pretty sure that yuli gurriel could of caught that.
Clear as Mud.
When one guy is ignorant of the rule, it's certainly his fault; but when everybody is, when the Nats coach and player both are, then isn't it a systematic problem? I just find it hard to blame the individuals when the ignorace of rules among the participants of the game is so widespread. Why is this the case and who should fix it?
Very good points. The problem is that commentators and largely popular channels like Jomboy, perpetuate false ideas and poor understandings of the rules. For the casual baseball fan, there will likely never be a fix until those that comment widely take the time to learn the rules themselves. And yes, MLB players are "casual baseball fans" themselves. Most of them know 95% of the rules very well, but don't even know they don't know the other 5% at all.
@@MJHBaseball I watch Jomboy's breakdowns a lot and turn to this video because of that breakdown footage. At least he's honest about himself not being a rule guy
@@MJHBaseball And about yelling over that play, I think the coach is also compelled to great extent by baseball (or American sport) culture to yell ... he had to make himself a scene there to "fire the team up" ... in European football coaches are supposed to be gentlemanly
@@MJHBaseball Another thought popped up when I remembered people talking about how righties had a disadvantage when running to the first if they are to run in the lane, because the path would be a curve. Baseball is not fair for lefties and righties to begin with -- lefty pitchers, for instance, have an advantage in picking off the runner on first. But do you think some slight improvements could be made -- by cutting the lane from 45 ft to 30 ft, for example? My thoughts fooling around here lol
Edit: in other words, why 45 ft, not longer, not shorter
@@MJHBaseball Is this interference? ruclips.net/video/0yVOKg8ByG4/видео.html (the coach argues and Jomboy has his stuff, of course they do)
This rule is stupid I mean honestly so you have to run right in runner lane and then back to left, why can’t we just run straight to the bag, if the runner’s lane is so necessary why don’t they put the bag there
The rules are the rules. But right handed batters having to go all the way across into foul territory is a little in fair. It’s already a longer distance why should the runner have to take an even longer path to the base? The fast way from point A to point B is a straight line but a right handed batter has to run across the plate and then get in foul territory to get in his runners lane?! That’s goofy
"why should the runner have to take an even longer path to the base?" Because that's the rule. Not saying it's the best rule or the correct rule, but the umpires on the field have to officiate according to the written rules, so in this case, he is out.
Be safe more often by knowing the rules??? So don't run in a straight line so you can possibly be safe on a rare interference play but be out more times on close plays at first because you didn't run in a straight line (running straight is quicker). Got it...seems like very poor strategy. The higher expected value would be to always run in a straight line except after a dropped 3rd strike.
4:07 mark the umpire took mask off with wrong hand and pointed fair with left hand that is bad mechanics..
When I played baseball up through college no one ever even told me that the runners lane existed. It was never called in any of my games ever. The coaches even taught us ways to throw to either side of the runner depending on where the ball is with no reference to the runners lane. I think that's part of the problem since if it's rarely taught or called no one really cares or understands it.
"rarely taught" and "no one... understands it" are your key words. trust me, as a high school, college, and american legion umpire, we call it all the time. as trained umpires, the rule and ruling are both quite straightforward. the fact that coaches don't teach it and players/fans don't understand it is not the fault of the officiating. as usual, take the emotion out of the play, enforce the rule, and move on. what a concept... great job as usual, mjh.
@@cloudwatcher724 that's your experience. But it's DEFINITELY NOT universal knowledge. Nor is it universally enforced. Just because it SHOULD BE, doesn't mean it is.
@@cloudwatcher724 R.L.I. is seldom called because it seldom occurs. There are not many throws in a game going to first base from the plate area. And the video starts with an error. R.L.I. rule has nothing to do with protecting a batter/ runner. The antithesis is true- trike is about protecting the defense.
@@rayray4192 i refer you to nfhs baseball rules book 2022, rule 8-4-1: "The batter-runner is out when: (g) he runs outside the the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; (2) The batter-runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."
the implication and correct interpretation of this rule is that if the batter-runner complies with the rule, i.e., keeps both feet inside or on the lines, he is PROTECTED from being called for interference. and notice that is doesn't limit the rule as to which defensive player is fielding and/or throwing the ball. a routine grounder to any infielder brings RLI into play. of course, the overwhelming majority of coaches, players and fans (in particular) are not aware of the wording of this rule and therefore have a kannipshin fit when the rule is enforced. a little education goes a long way...
You are a good guy and you provide a needed service. Thank you. However, you are absolutely wrong. You open your video stating the running lane is on the field to protect the runner. Incorrect sir. First, he’s not a runner; he’s a batter/ runner. Second, and way more important, the running lane’s purpose is to protect the fielder at first base who is attempting to field a throw from the home plate area. There is nothing in the rule about protecting the batter/ runner.
If the batter-runner never enters the runner's lane and DOES interfere with the fielder's ability to field the throw, is the batter-runner out?
If the batter-runner does enter the runner's lane and DOES interfere with the fielder's ability to field the throw, is the batter-runner out?
Not sure how that "protects the fielder" since he can be interfered with in either situation. But since the batter-runner is out in one situation and not out in the other, he certainly appears to be "protected" from being called out to me. The purpose of the rule wasn't to keep the fielder "safe from contact" but to keep the batter- runner safe from an interference call if he ran correctly. As far as insisting on using the phrase, "batter-runner." That get's annoying when everyone knows what your saying, but technically you would be correct.
@@MJHBaseball I’m thinking you are a coach sir, and not an umpire. Coaches and umpires approach a baseball game very differently. The purpose of your video may be to instruct coaches how to instruct their players how to not place themselves in jeopardy of being called out for interference. That’s a great service to the baseball family and you are commended for doing do. Bravo. Words have meaning and context is everything. Umpires carefully choose their words; especially when explaining a call to a coach. You use the word “ interference” when describing a batter/ runner in the running lane “ interfering” with the fielder’s ability to field a throw. It’s impossible for a batter/ runner to interfere with a fielder fielding or in other words receiving a throw when he’s in the running lane. Even if the ball strikes him in the helmet and is deflected out of play he has not interfered. The R.L.I. rule never states the purpose of the rule is to protect a batter/ runner in the N.F.H.S. rule book or case book or the M.L.B. rule book or manual. Baseball is a defensive game despite the dancing around the bases after a home run and the choreography at home plate; which by the way is a point of emphasis for the 2022 high school season. The defense must be honored always in the game of baseball. Meaning most rules favor the defense. Since we are in the high school season it’s important to know that a quality throw with a reasonable expectation to retire a runner is not needed in high school to call interference. The players are students and are learning to be good citizens in a community which means they must be taught to play by the rules by running in the running lane giving the fielder a fair chance to make an accurate throw and the fielder a fair chance to receive the throw. The defender needs to learn sportsmanship and not drill the batter/ runner with the ball. The defense is protected, not the offense in the R.L.I. rule. Join me in admitting you are wrong. I’m wrong often. The only time I’ve ever learned anything is by being wrong. It’s humbling. Edit your video and gain even more respect. You already have lots of respect. Build even more by editing your video. From a coach’s perspective his player is protected from penalty if he runs in the running lane, but it’s not the purpose of the rule.
Okay. Good points actually. I do umpire more than coach, but the vast majority of VIEWERS of the channel are coaches but the vast majority of COMMENTORS are umpires, so you have a good point there. I view the rule primarily as a means to protect the runner if they act correctly. Not in no much as how the rule is stated but in why it was created in the first place. Originally the first and 3rd base were centered on the foul line and half of the base was in fair and half in foul territory. When they moved the base to be completely in fair territory and the base moved closer to home plate measuring 90 feet to the outside of the base rather than the center of the base, the rule needed clarification. It was meant to ensure that the runner that stayed in foul territory within 3 feet of the foul line couldn't be called out for interference. Since that was it's original intent, I see it as protecting the runner. Your comments do, of course, make all the sense in the world that TECHNICALLY any interference protects the fielder, so I see your point.
@@MJHBaseball Umpires must think in precise terms and use precise language. I put my 100 question test down ( high school test) to answer your gracious post. You are a good man serving the baseball family and everyone appreciates it. Umpires battle myths. I get frustrated with the myths because it makes my job needlessly more difficult. Hopefully this example will communicate what I’m talking about. At a youth tournament ( we are blessed to have wannabe grass where you can move the bases and portable mounds to any dimension) with R-1 and R-2 and zero outs a batter struck a sharp ground ball off the side of one of these portable mounds, and the ball ricocheted off the mound and struck the field umpire, and then went into right centerfield. The ball never touched the pitcher. I knew instantly the ball was dead and the batter must be awarded first base. Umpire interference. ( umpire is positioned on the inside of the diamond) That meant R-1 & R-2 must be returned to their time of pitch bases. My field umpire never called time and never called interference. I waited for him to make the proper call because I did not want to embarrass him. Since both runners came all the way home the coach thought he had two runs score. He was not happy and argued the call, and amazingly my field umpire argued with the coach against me, his partner. That’s a tough moment for an umpire when the coach and your “ partner” are both arguing with you. I of course stuck with the correct call and told my assignor never ever would I work again with this umpire. Umpires are quitting and aging. The umpire shortage is at a crisis level. A recent Referee magazine has an article on the issue. Back to the R.L.I. The old saying was- runner, you take the foul side of the base- fielder, you take the fair side of the base. When the foul line went down the middle of the base it was difficult for umpires to call a sharp ground ball over the base fair or foul. There were collisions at first base so the base was placed in foul territory. It’s a simple rule - run in the lane and then exit the lane in your last stride to the base. Hope you are well and have a great baseball season.
I think it's a rule that needs to be changed. How I'm not sure. Turner hustled his butt off running to first in a straight line and it looks like he was already safe when the contact occurred. Seems to me the runner's lane penalizes the batter runner cause it causes the runner to change his momentum
I find it's best to hit the ball and immediately step on home, thus I've hit a home run. It's the fastest way, after all.
@@seantimmons5900 lol, love it... as long as we're ignoring the running lane, let's ignore the bases too
and this is why your sport is stupid. The runner should Always be in the lane or he should be out. How is running in fair territory legal?
Your commentary is condescending and (incidentally) wrong!
You distort the MLB rule in your paraphrase. The rule does not require the runner to be called out whenever he has run outside the runner's lane and interferes with the catch at first. The rule requires the umpire to **make a judgment ** as to whether the runner has interfered with the play at first **in running outside the lane**. That judgment is the source of the controversy here. The runner is entitled to be in fare territory at the base, where he impacted the catch at first. As a result, the team argues, he did not interfere with the play **in running outside the lane** - he impacted the play by stepping on first base, as he was entitled. He is not out by this rule: the batter is safe at first, and the runners advance on a live ball.
Go back to the rule, highlight the words "in the umpire's judgment in so doing," and re-examine your smugness.
Many thanks to Anthony Rendon - ball don't lie, bitch.
You're wrong here and this video is correct. At no time did he enter the runners lane and therefore is not protected in the last step to the base which is entirely in fair territory. Among those who study and teach baseball rules at the higher levels, this instance is not even close to a debate. No well trained umpire would call the runner safe here (based on the replay). He was out and it is very clear based on the rules. If people don't like it, they need to change the rules.
Thanks for the comment. And you're right, I did come off as smug in this video, but this is MLB. You'd think the managers would know the rules...and maybe he did and chose to argue it the way he did for other reasons? I completely understand why the player didn't know the rules. They are great with 95% of them, but they don't umpire, they play, so that last 5% takes a lot of time and study to nail down.
@@MJHBaseball As in the video, you still don't address the text of the rule; rather, you conjure nameless "well-trained umpires" and people who "study" the rules as your support.
The rule calls for a judgment by the umpire. A judgment as to what? As to whether the runner interfered with the fielder *in running outside the lane*. That's the critical significance of the phrase "in so doing" in the text of the rule - it requires that, for the runner to be called out, his running outside the lane must have caused the interference at the base. This is the part of the rule at issue in the play, and this is the part of the rule missing in your video's analysis.
You repeat that Turner and Martinez do not know the rule. But there is a better, more generous explanation: they understand the rule and dispute the judgment of causation made by the umpire.
It is fair to disagree with Turner and Martinez and concur in the umpire's judgment. It is a "judgment call," after all. But to insist that anyone who doesn't concur in your judgment doesn't know the rule? That is shortsighted egotism.
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11): "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."
OBR 5.09(a)(11) Comment 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." Be advised that a runner must be within the lane in order to exit it. It is physically impossible to exit something that one has never been in.
The judgement on whether Turner interfered with the first baseman's ability to take the throw seems mute. It's plain to anyone that he did. Since it's so obvious that this was interference, it would seem obvious that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't know the rule. So I can certainly consider rewording things in the future, but I do stand by the belief that this is no less obvious a call than a "judgment call" as to whether a runner is thrown out on a 6-3 that beats him by 2 feet. That is a judgment call too, but is it really?
@@MJHBaseball The question is not just whether Turner interfered with the first baseman's ability to take the throw. Turner is out if he runs outside the lane "and in the umpire's judgment **in so doing** interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." If these words ("in so doing") were not in the rule, your interpretation would probably be correct. But by including this clause, the rule (wisely) instructs the umpire to judge whether the runner interfered with the first baseman **by failing to run in the lane**. If the interference was not caused by the runner's failure to run in the lane, the rule does not apply, by its own terms.
The comment is not instructive here. It makes clear that a runner who uses the lane, but exits to step on first base, should not be called out under this rule for interference in failing to use the lane. No one is claiming that Turner is safe for this reason.
I appreciate your willingness to have this exchange. It doesn't seem we are likely to reach a consensus on this point, but I am happy to disagree respectfully. It is much preferred to the dismissiveness of your video.
The Trea Turner play is famous because of its recency, but with the throw pulling the first baseman and the glove/catch into the basepath, looked OK to me and it was a bad call. Meh. As a Nationals fan, God bless Anthony Rendon.
I understand your view of this and what you say is true (the throw could have been better), only the rule is very clear and the call was by the book.
I dont care what the rule says. Turner was safe. He got to the bag before the throw hit him. Hes safe.
That doesn't matter. He interfered with the fielder receiving the catch. Before or after he reaches the base is irrelevant. If you want to award him a single and then call him out for the interference, be my guest.
Explain, by showing the verbage of the rule, that both of these plays are actually interference. I still fail to see any fundamental difference. You do not have to run if the out of bounds Lane in order to get protection from interference. Interference occurs anytime a runner's path is interfere with as long as he's within a reasonable distance of the direct Baseline. The only time that the runner's path can be any farther than several feet from a direct line between the bases is when you've overrun first base and you proceed to second. That has been be functional rule of interfering with a runner since time immemorial!
If we're going to go to an assumption that a reasonably thrown ball should be caught for a reasonable effort to catch the ball would have caught the ball, then we're going to have to go ahead and Rule Runners out at first even when the catcher does not catch a well-thrown ball.
I say this because when a third baseman is running at Full Tilt out into the middle of left field to catch a ball and they call an infield fly rule with the ball isn't anywhere near the Enfield. Which is why it's called an infield fly rule not an outfield fly rule even if an infielder catches it. If you're going to call that under the infield fly rule then if he had missed the ball because it hit his glove and fell out of it or he misjudged it and it fell and hit his shoulder, and they still call the infield fly rule even though we missed the ball. You're making an assumption of fact that isn't so. Play the game by how the ball is handled or mishandled. But not by the incident of what the runner could not see from behind him. Interference is an intentional Act. If the runner were running in bounds by 2 or 3 ft I could understand it. But not when he's running on the base path where he freaking belongs.
This is like that stupid rule that if you're a batter and you're in the batter's box where you're supposed to be. And you don't get out of the way of the catcher trying to make a throw to second base. It's a stupid rule. The catcher knows where the battery is before he tries to make the throw. I can fully understand if the batter were to move closer to the line which the catcher might wish to throw, but as long as he stands still in the batter's box there should be no such thing as interference with the play as long as he's where he belongs.
One other one, some years ago a runner coming around Third Base decided to run 12 ft pass 3rd Base in order to run into the third base coach. The moron behind the plate that for some reason somebody calls an umpire called interference with the runner. There is no reason to be 12 foot outside the base path when you're turning from second Crossing 3rd going home. I was a world-class Runner when I was in high school. I never got over 6 feet out of the direct Baseline, ever.
Cite the rule, quit giving us your opinion. I want to hear what the rule actually States.
The other rule that is rarely enforced is if you slide past second base and lose contact with the bag you're automatically out so is the runner going to first.
You really don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you?
First
baseball is dumb