@@jackl6121 I stand corrected! The camera in my mind's eye had Jeter running to first knocking it out of the firstbaseman's mitt...but my memory was wrong!
Was wondering when CCS would do this one, great job! The fact that i already knew what you were going to say is a testament to how well you've explained this rule before! 😊
Rule 7.08(b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not)
@donsheffler what he didnt do?? You can see him on the right side of the lane, look back to where Freeman is, and right away does a hard cut to the left. Is that not intentional??? Is not that interference because of the intention?? He didn't decide to run that way he saw where Freeman was and intentionally changed his running to the base to be between Freeman and 2nd base.
@@gsuandre5579 Sure, he intentionally (and legally) changed his path. Machado did not commit interference with a throw, because no throw had yet happened. Once the throw is released, he makes no intentional movement other than legally advancing toward 2nd base. Any adjustment of the base path is legal because there is no tag attempt. In order to get interference with the throw, he must make some other act besides running to 2nd. You must see an arm, leg, etc. reach to block the ball or the fielder receiving the throw.
@@gsuandre5579 He didn’t intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. Words have meaning. Manny ran where it would be harder for the first baseman to make a clean accurate throw without hitting him. It’s the fielder’s job to find a way to throw to the base without hitting the runner. The first baseman can throw a couple feet to Manny’s left, or a couple feet to his right, and still hit the shortstop with a good throw to get the force out. Manny has no control over where the first baseman will actually throw the ball. The first baseman made the error by hitting Manny.
@@92retsekoj Rule 7.08 does not exist in the Official Baseball Rules. Chapter 7 only goes to section 4, but I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know the rules to cite the book correctly. The rule you're TRYING to cite is 5.09(b)(1) which states "A runner is out when He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;" A rule that is discussed in this video and Manny does not violate, as there's no tag attempt. Try again next time, bud.
When I was watching three Hall of Famers on the Fox aftergame show getting this *ALL WRONG* I was losing my mind. Kudos to live game announcers John Smoltz and Joe Davis in real-time getting this right, and explaining it well, when it happened.
@@sfan2767 While Papi said "Smart play by Manny right there" he did also conclude that Manny got away with something and could have been called for interference. All three of them agreed Manny should have been called on it but for some judgment call by the ump. Arod basically said if Freeman had thrown the ball right into Manny's back he would have gotten the interference call, which is untrue. They were all wrong. This isn't interference at any level of baseball.
he did look back at where the fielder was and he knew from this where the throwing lane was and then he ran into the grass to interfere with the probable throwing lane but if that's not in the rule its not in the rule and its just a heads up play but it was intentional
Yes, he intentionally ran where he thought was the highest probability of being between the first baseman and second base itself. But it was only a probability that a throw would hit him, because he wasn't looking and wasn't actively tracking and trying to intercept a ball. Since in the rules he can run anywhere he wants, and since the only reason at that point he got hit was because a fielder threw the ball at him, he did nothing wrong.
When I first saw this play I was able to think through the rules and come to the correct conclusion thanks to CCS’s prior videos. Confirmed with your follow up here. Thank you Lindsay!
There is no path to deviate from. The runner can run anywhere he wants. And, he didn't "interfere" with a throw. He got in the way and Freeman threw it anyway. On the fielder.
Of course, he “interfered” with the throw. The question is whether it is illegal, or not. For those not familiar with the common interpretation, it seems logical that when Machado intentionally alters his path, he is interfering. The rule, as written, could support this. But the interpretation requires some other act or movement besides the altering of a path to the base.
@@MwD676 I considered that the word "interfered" as it is used in the rule book means the action was illegal. When an ump determines "Interference" he is calling an illegal action. So of all the ways we could describe what Manny did, like veering in front of, blocking or deflecting, or getting in the way of, or screening, then only if they resulted in illegal action would the word "interfere" be appropriate. It's kind of like a "foul tip". Just ticking the ball foul does not create a foul tip. If it is not caught before hitting something or landing on the ground, it is a foul ball and not a foul tip. If it is caught by the catcher directly, it is a foul tip and is thus a strike, unlike a foul ball. In a similar way, "interfering" is illegal and has a penalty. There really isn't any such thing as legally interfering.
@@donsheffler According to the current rule you are correct. Like I said, it's a terrible rule. The rule needs to change. It should be an illegal action
@@alexh8613 You mean according to the current rules, plural. You're being vague about which rule is a "terrible rule" because honestly you don't really understand the rules that exist. What he does is perfectly legal for a number of reasons; there is no one rule which says he can do that. It's just that of all the rules that govern running the bases and interfering with fielders, and interfering intentionally with the ball, Manny's action doesn't break any rules at all. So when you say "it needs to change", you'll need to be more specific because you don't seem to even understand why it's legal in the first place. 1. deviating from running path: There is no running path. He can run wherever he wants. A running path is only established for a runner at the moment someone is trying to tag that runner. So with all that info, how/why would you change it just to make it so this one weird occurrence can't occur? Well, you can't, is the answer. You'd have to change some other rules too. 2. interfering with a fielder. Well, runner interference of a fielder only happens when the runner is sufficiently close to a fielder to either make contact with him or at least hinder the fielder's physical ability to field a batted or thrown ball. Right off, this rule isn't even relevant to this play because Manny is nowhere near a player, let alone near a player trying to catch a ball. 3. interfering with at thrown ball. This can only happen intentionally, meaning a runner would have to see a thrown ball in flight and then swat at it or stick a body part in front of it in order to make contact. Manny never saw a thrown ball. Since this kind of interference requires intentional action, that means it can't happen unintentionally. If Manny can't see the thrown ball, Manny can't interfere with the thrown ball. If you propose to make it so that any contact between a runner and a thrown ball is interference - again, because you don't like how the Manny play happened - you would be fundamentally changing how the game is played. You have no idea how many times runners are hit with thrown balls through absolutely no fault of their own. That's because a runner and a ball are usually heading to the same pinpoint spot and as each gets closer to that target spot the likelihood that they'll make contact gets closer and closer to 100%. It would be an absurd circus of confusion to put into the hands of the umpires a decision-making process which has to determine if the runner was running in a particular area just to get hit with a ball vs circumstantially. And that is, if it is even a wise idea to outlaw a runner from strategically getting in the way in the first place.
Like Freeman said he would have done the same thing as a runner, and every base runner does do the same thing. They are taught from little league to intentionally put themselves in the most likely path of a throw.
Are you gonna do those replay reviews from Saturday's games? They were pretty controversial, and are least one (Jazz Chisholm's steal) led directly to the game-winning run
As Freddie Freeman himself said.. We're taught to do that. Because it hits in the back... You're never going to get that call... only when you actually react to the throw and get into the path will you ever get that INT call (excpet as Lindsay pointed out... RLI)... Smart heads up base running. It's telling when during interviews when the coach and player of the OTHER team say that too.
Just so we are clear…and I am not saying it applies to the situation here but… If an umpire makes or doesn’t make a call are you saying they can just go to the umpire and state, “Well, we’ve always been taught to do things that way…” and the umpire should then reverse the call to favor the team of the player making that statement?
@@1969EType Only if you want to get tossed... still, it is how they are taught... get yourself into the expected path of the throw. We as umps are taught on this play, only call INT if the player makes a move in reaction to the actual throw.. in this case.. he's moving in response to the possible throw... no call should be done. Still, it's how players are taught.. I was taught that when I played in my youth.. as a HS umpire I know they still teach it today.. Hell, at third you lead off in foul territory.. retreat to the base in fair territory.. why.. if you get hit with a batted ball in foul.. it's nothing.. but if retreating you get hit in the back with a throw.. it's also nothing.. not to say it always works.. but it's how you're coached to play.. and how we as umps are taught to call it. And as a player.. you should never argue with the umpires.. that what you manager is for.
@@1969EType No, since it's a non reviewable call, you can't argue the ump's decision, if you do you'll get tossed. It's more of a if it was called you lost and if it doesn't you won. In general terms, it's a quite clear call: if the runner sees the path of the throw and makes a move to get in the way then it's called
@@1969EType When someone says "we're taught to run that way" I take it to mean that this is how blatantly legal it is, being a strategy which is taught to players at all levels to employ. This would not be a thing to use to argue with an ump.
Every baserunner that has ever played past coach pitch learns 1 important thing, that the coach repeats, Every time they get to 3rd... DOWN IN FOUL, BACK IN FAIR... Why, back in fair, because it closes the throwing lane with the chance of deflecting the ball and scoring. . . This is No different
Also, as we see in the video, a runner on third sees a grounder to the third baseman and knows a throw is coming home... he veers super hard left into the grass in the diamond and then runs at the plate directly between the third baseman and home. It is highly legal and highly effective. Manny has probably had to deal with this a hundred times and would be a major factor in his knowledge of the tactic in the first place.
I think this interpretation is incorrect. The hard part about these calls is showing intent. The runner can accidentally block the throw and get hit by the ball... but your take is wrong that just because the ball has not been thrown that he can do what he wants. It's clearly stated that the fielders have the right of way to make a play on the ball (thrown or not). The runner is not allowed to even obstruct the view or distract the fielder. He has to stay out of their way. It's his obligation to let the play happen without intentionally "interfering" (and in some specific cases, even unintentional interference is listed in the rules). This is clearly stated in 6.01 . That's the whole point of the right of way clause. So, Machado cannot intentionally try to interfere with a throw. That's it. That's all the information you need. It's clearly stated. Did he intentionally block the right of way of the fielders? If you think yes, he should be out. However, if you think that he was doing so to avoid a tag, or any other reason other than purposely interfering with the play.. then its not interference. Honestly, I think people try to hard to look at the specific wording. Every specific situation isn't going to be listed. The whole point of the interference rule is to prevent the runner from interfering, especially intentionally. They made it a point to state the runner has to stay out of the fielder's way. If you are trying to rationalize the fact that a player intentionally put himself in the path of the ball, but its not "interference" even though he was intentionally trying to interfere.... then you aren't truly comprehending the rule. That being said, it's a smart play. It doesn't get called as much as it should of, and its an easy out if he doesn't get in the way.
In honesty, I quit reading once you suggested that fielders have right to field a thrown ball. Sure, the fielder is not liable for obstruction when he attempts to field a thrown ball. But if there is contact with the runner and fielder, or runner and ball, it is NOTHING. Definitely not runner interference.
@@nickr7437 Literally not what happened here. Machado legally altered his base path…prior to any throw. He then UNINTENTIONALLY impedes the throw. I did not mean to offend, but simply was short on time to read your long post. You start with an incorrect assumption of the rules. Then go on to expound upon your thoughts which further dilute the specificity of the language in the rules. My concise 2 paragraphs would help explain that, if you would read it.
@MwD676 fair enough. The interpretation does depend on whether you think this was done intentionally or not. Machado is allowed to run wherever he wants. The only exception would be to run somewhere to intentionally interfere with the person fielding or making a play on a thrown ball. The rule interpretation is pretty straightforward imo. The runner has to try and stay out of the way of fielders. The fielders are given "the right of way". The rules make no distinction on whether the ball was or wasn't thrown yet, only on the intent to interfere. The whole section is written to avoid the offense being impeded by a base runner. Intent is subjective, and that is why this call is not reviewable. I just think it's clear he was purposely putting himself in the way of the throw.
@@nickr7437 Again, the fielder has right-of-way on a batted ball-That is it. You are trying to apply this to thrown balls. There is no right-of-way on thrown balls. In fact, it can easily still be obstruction on a thrown ball if the fielder blocks the path early or the ball in flight is not near enough to the fielder. That is your main misconception, and it leads to further confusion as you try to get into the minutia.
Arod has always talked out of his ass. 1) when he left Seattle for Texas he said it wasn't about the money 2) calling out I got it to a short stop fielding a pop-up - I wasnt talking to him 3) slapping the ball out of the glove of the fielder at first base- that's legal 4) denying using PED's - I didn’t do that Got away already!
This is fine. Within the rules and a heads up vet move by a veteran player but when he’s intentionally spiking players at first base while blowing bubblegum, it is uncalled for. Manny has a history of being sensitive and playing dirty when his feelings are hurt. I respect his talent as a player but i despise his ill intentions as a human.
As a batter you can literally strike out but if you touch the catcher’s glove by a whisker, that’s considered interference and the batter is rewarded 1st base, however, what Manny did is perfectly ok? Hopefully MLB will address that and change it during the offseason. It’s total nonsense
Yes he looked back and determined where Freeman was and where Freeman most likely would throw from, if throwing to second base. All just possibilities. Freeman might have moved to a better place to make the throw. He may have tossed it more to the side, or softly over Manny. He may have decided just to pull it in and make the play to first base. In the end, Manny never a saw a thrown ball. No interference.
There is no reason to look back. You are looking at the fielder in front who is setting up exactly where the ball is coming. If the fielder was savvy he could decoy the runner by moving out of position but it would be tough at this level of baseball. The thrower wants a target and the ball is coming in to the receiver too hot to try and fake a move and return to make the play.
Reminds me of Reggie Jackson in the 76 world series when he got caught in a run down and put his hip into a throw. The Yankees ended up beating the Dodgers. My feelings are it was just a bad throw. Freddy could put a little arc to it and lolly popped it over Machado. It just was a heads up play by Machado. I think it is fairly common for a runner to cheat over a few feet and try to cut off the angle.
Reggie saw the ball and purposely put a body part in the path of the ball already in the air so he would make contact with it. Interference. Manny ran in an area he could safely guess would be Freeman's throwing lane. Freeman then hit Manny. Never interference.
@@donsheffler just one of those things like a batter can't lean into a pitch and get hit by the pitch. It is a rule that I have never seen in my life get called? It is the same deal with the Reggie play. Don't throw the ball close to the runner and you won't run the risk of the ball hitting the runner. Plain and simple.
Kinda amazing. The Dodgers shut down the Padres thru the whole series after this play. Without this play the Dodgers domination would have been much greater.
Moving into a path and hoping the fielder doesn't find a way to throw around or over you, is legal. Yes, that is a running strategy, which is taught to players at all levels of baseball. It's the fielder's mistake if he doesn't throw over or around the runner..
Yes, this happens regularly. Usually it is the runner on third, veering into the infield grass during a grounder to the third baseman, when a play will be coming to the plate.
But the first baseman still has to throw the ball. He could throw to the left, the right, or softly over the runner, OR, he could decide to make a play elsewhere like first base. The point is, getting hit by the ball is the fault of the fielder throwing that ball.
Baseball interference rules are nonsensical. This wasn't interference, but earlier this year Juan Soto got called for interference when he was literally standing on second base. Rules need to have some level of consistency.
Your memory must be warped. Soto wasn't *on* second base. He sauntered on back toward second in a slow walk, and was only lunging toward second base as the shortstop was backing up into his space. Textbook interference.
Of course it is intentional. It is base running 101. Unless the fielder receiving the ball decoys you it is simple to tell where the ball is coming from and you should try to put yourself in its path. Even old, fat softball players know this :) However, it will very rarely be called if it is even somewhat skillfully executed. It's probably the most common and easiest cheat in the game.
@@effthegop Of course you can. It’s right in the rules. One way a runner is out is if he “intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.” That’s the actual wording. Specifically this means the runner with consideration and intent makes contact with a thrown ball. If you’re in a pickle and literally reach up and swat away a thrown ball, that’s intentional interference. Same with sticking out your leg, hip, shoulder, or head in order to contact a ball you see in flight from a throw. What is impossible is for a runner to *UNintentionally* interfere with a thrown ball. If the runner doesn’t see a thrown ball and then go out of his way to make contact with it, then if it hits him it is accidental and he *can’t* be called for interference on that. This is even if - as in Manny’s situation - the runner purposefully puts himself between a fielder with the ball, and a base that the fielder might throw it to. That’s why it wasn’t called on Manny and that’s why none of the Dodgers argued it.
by the rule book, it was legal base running by machado. the baseline rule only applies during a tag attempt, meaning a runner can’t go more than 3 feet left or right to avoid a tag. otherwise, a base runner establishes his own base path
This should have fell under 'DISGRACE TO THE GAME' rules. This wasn't "good base running", this was an intentional attempt to prevent the throw to the person covering the base. I've never seen Freddie Freeman run that far into the infield to try and stop a throw.
Running in the expected throwing lane is taught to players at every level. The best baserunners do this and yes it's 100% legal, and 100% good base running.
I can't stand Machado but he's played this series to his advantage. He's done everything to get under the Dodger's skin but at the same time has been a big leader for the Padres while the Dodger's still think they're at summer camp with the camp counselor Roberts.
@@visarr there was an almost identical play in college this year which the runner was called out on abandonment. I can see either way. Id be interested to see a breakdown
Think there was one a couple years back, Kansas vs. Texas Tech. Base runner in that game went about as far as Betts did here. [Difference might be that the umpires made a clear home run call in that game. MLB crew gave Betts the benefit of doubt since they made no clear call.]
@@donsheffler you don’t have to go to the dugout for abandonment to apply. Anything that clearly shows you have given up running the bases is grounds for being called out on abandonment. This was called in college just last year, exactly as far as betts did. No significant difference in the rule between levels
@2:05 You can see Machado look back at Freeman to see where he was before he throw the ball to second base. All Machado had to do after that was close the angle on the throw which he did. It a scummy play.
Absolutely heads-up running. It's how they teach it. In fact, Manny has had to throw home on grounders to third, around runners from third who have veered into the infield grass exactly as Manny did on this play. This happens regularly and is not "scummy" in any way. It's perfectly legal and you're trying to make it as hard as possible on the fielder to get an accurate throw to the base.
@@Quinn-j6j It doesn't matter where he always runs. The runner can run wherever he wants. The bottom line is there was nothing illegal about where he ran.
Before being an umpire, I was a coach. I used to teach my runners to take their lead off at first base on the grass. Out to the cut but on the grass. Almost every game at the youth and HS level has only two umpires so the BU would be in position B with a runner at 1B only. By being on the grass the runner was between a pickoff throw from the pitcher and the 1st baseman AND the BU did not have a clear view of the base. If he can't see the base, he can't call my runner out on a pickoff.
@alanhess9306 i disagree with the video as conclusion. Firstly, whoever thinks it wasn't intentionally to block the throw is either stupid or in denial. Secondly, the interference rule makes it clear the that the runner can't get in the way of the fielders intentionally. There are no exceptions listed, even if it doesn't cover this exact scenario. The bottom line is that if you think he interfered with the throw on purpose, it's literally the point of the interference rule. There is no "purposely interfering with the fielders" in a legal way.
Since it was legal, he did not "interfere." Baseball has very specific language. Also you're not being specific about what he did. He did not intentionally run into a throw. He intentionally put his path between a fielder and the base he was going to. Not the same. The player could have and should have found a way to throw off to a side or over the runner. That's on the fielder.
Do you think the language of 5.09(a)(13) needs to change if this is how this play will be ruled? Also, I don't like the standard of "he didn't look back" - he doesn't have to, he's looking at where the shortstop is lined up, these are pros
He looks back to see where the 1st baseman is and then veers to get in his way. While I agree, it doesn't violate the letter of the rule, I'd say it violates the intent of the rule. What other purpose did he veer left for than to intentionally interfere with the throw?
He is certainly intending to make the defensive play more difficult. I’d imagine this sort of play occurs infrequently, however, in part because a fielder seeing the runner in the path he intends to throw the ball will typically adjust and throw from a different angle/position to avoid the runner. Because Machado doesn’t know if the ball will be thrown in the path he takes, it’s hard to say he intentionally interferes with the thrown ball.
@@babababad Right at the beggining of the play, just when Freeman was making the catch and he's starting to run. It's not a clear "look back" but rather an "over the shoulder glance"
There is no rule against intentionally interfering with the throw to 2nd base, the rule specifically states a thrown ball. That means the ball has to be thrown, the runner needs to see where the ball is going, and then intentionally divert into its path for it to be illegal. It isn't enough to just run where it makes the throw more difficult to the fielder. If MLB wanted to make it illegal to interfere with a throw, they would need to write the rule that way.
It's interesting how this rule is interpreted, because I think everyone would agree that he WAS trying to get hit with the ball, ie his intent was to interfere with the throw. I'm not arguing that the play was called incorrectly, and I understand that baserunners are taught to do exactly this. I just see an argument to be made that the interference rule describes what the runners are doing in these situations.
@@Subangelis Not seeing why that's a hang-up. Like I said, we can all agree that his intent was to get hit with a *thrown ball*. The rule doesn't make any mention of when his actions need to be initiated.
@@johndoe-yw7eb The fact the rule says "thrown ball" implies that the "initiated" point is when the ball is thrown, eg: released. The fact that's how the rule is constantly applied strongly supports that interpretation.
@@RyanRobbins007 That’s like arguing that the firefighters didn’t save the jumper because they set up the net before he jumped out of the burning building.
Veteran Freddie Freeman was at fault. He should have stood up to throw the ball or to be safe, just go to first and get the one out. He made a rookie mistake, especially after he admitted that he would have done the same thing? Why did he throw it directly at 2nd, and not further out for the 2nd baseman to reach for it. OR to be safe, just step on the bag at first and get the single out SMH
No fielder was at first yet, and the throw to second would have been early enough for a double play. When he mentally committed to the throw, Machado was still running a conventional basepath.
@@babababad You have never seen a first baseman toss the ball to the pitcher as the pitcher runs to cover first? For that matter, watch the play, Freeman likely could have easily made it back to first in time. And in regards to when Freeman "mentally committed to the throw", what does that have to do with anything?
I would love to see the term 'provoked [name of rule infractions] introduced into OBR. Both examples here clearly show that it never was the intention of these runners to make it to the next base as fast as possible, but to leave their initially established running lane in order to interfere with defensive play ...
@@John-tx1wk In the heat of the moment, you commit to a course of action and it can be difficult to change course. Buehler was on the way to first on this play and probably would have beaten Freeman there, but by the time Freeman was making the transfer, Buehler was barely off the mound, and Machado, still running more or less along the baseline, was right in Freeman's field of vision. Machado timed it perfectly so that Freeman had committed to the throw by the time he shifted his basepath.
I would love to see the term 'provoked [name of rule infractions] introduced into OBR. Both examples here clearly show that it never was the intention of these runners to make it to the next base as fast as possible, but to leave their initially established running lane in order to interfere with defensive play ...
Good day, Sir. I mean no disrespect but there **is no running lane between the bases.** A player could, however illogical, run in a zigzag pattern so long as he is not trying to avoid a tag. Baseball announcers have dumbed this game down so much because of their own laziness or whatever. To me, a professional baseball analyst should be on top of this. In 60+ years of listening to baseball I've yet to see anyone other than Vin Scully know anything beyond the most superficial rules.
I'm obviously not talking about a running lane between bases because I refer to something the runner establishes, not to something that's drawn onto the field ... I know a 'lane' doesn't exist except for the 3-foot lane. So 'lane' is really misleading the way I used it here - and autocorrect was not helpful ... I'm talking about the running line a runner establishes himself, so let's work with that ...
If the fielder runs after the runner, it might be interpreted this way, but simply extending an arm in the direction of a runner 40 feet away does not a tag attempt make.
@@babababad Doesn't say anywhere in the rule how close the tag attempt has to be, only that there has to be one. If it can be that much of a judgement call, the umpires could make far less of a stretch to call the play in the video intentional. This is why the rules need to be detailed and not leave things to interpretation.
@@Desirsar The word has a meaning that is not in dispute. The rulebook doesn't need to redefine the word; it uses the word because it has a clear meaning. Everyone knows that throwing a rock in the direction of the moon is not an attempt to hit the moon. Everyone knows a practice swing between pitches is not an attempt to hit a pitched ball. And everyone knows reaching toward a person 25 feet from you is not an attempt to tag him. We might refer to umpire school instruction, and/or notes about the rules. Anyone who has spent any time in umpire training has had to deal with the idea of a runner's path being established upon a tag attempt. For a tag attempt to happen, the ball must be in the hand or glove of the fielder, and the fielder must reach or extend in an *attempt* to place a tag on the runner. All to say unless you're trying to stretch the meaning of such a thing to fit some bizarre interpretation of the rule itself, a tag attempt must be a legit, sincere, plausible try at placing a tag. So you are correct when you say the rule book doesn't say how close a tag attempt needs to be. Why would it? There is no reason to insert the need for measurement in feet and inches of distances between a glove and a runner. If so, the more detail, the more need for interpretation! A legit reach with the ball trying to tag someone, is a tag attempt. Honestly I am stunned that you would require this level of response to understand that sticking your arm out from 30 feet away doesn't establish a base path, lol.
The rule needs to be updated to include this kind of interference! Manny’s action are intentional! He’s looking at the fielder and running in the way of the throw.
This has been the rule for >100 years. This is definitely not the first time this has happened. Players are taught to do this, run at the glove of the guy who will receive the throw to make the throw more difficult. This play has likely happened millions of times across all levels for decades. Why should the rule be changed to make it easier for the defense? Freeman himself said he would have done the same thing. It's legal and he should have expected it and adjust his throw or just taken the out on first like you do with a well executed bunt
Nobody missed him looking back. But he just saw where the player was; he didn't see or track a thrown ball. If he doesn't see a thrown ball, he can't interfere with a thrown ball. Just running to the airspace which he believes is the most likely throwing lane for the first baseman, is perfectly legal. It is most certainly not "by definition" interference, lol.
There is no baseline between first and second, second and third, or third and home (there is a foul line between third and home but that's not the same thing). So this is a completely irrelevant comment. Might as well ask what's the point of the hula dancers in the infield.
This is one of those odd situations where so many people don’t understand the rule BUT in every game we have played in and/or watched, the “path” to 2B or 3B or Home isn’t defined. Ever stretch out a double? You take a wide path to 2B. Or turn a Double into a Triple? There’s an ‘arc’ to 3B. Or round 3B and head home? Lucky if you don’t take out the 3B Coach on your path. So we are all quite familiar with how liberal the path is… sorry Trump voters, I used the word liberal… but many seemingly believe Machado was “out of the path”
And runners sometimes run part way and stop, fall down, go back, slip, etc. There is no rule mandating any of this. A runner doesn't need to go to the bag as fast as he possibly can (I've seen some making this argument) and he can do whatever he wants between the bases. Yes, usually, it's dumb to not get there as quick as you can but there are clear times when it makes sense to be circuitous or to even stop and watch before deciding what to do. People are just upset cause the dodgers lost.
@@tw1nn319well obviously he's a dodgers fan and anything that makes his team less likely to win must be nefarious and illegal and therefore they must be out! 😂
I'm surprised that the explanation seems to say that the lack of a "runner's lane" for bases other than first base provides the baserunner a basis for GREATER freedom from interference. My understanding is that the runners lane to first base gives the runner an exemption for interference if within the lane. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the other bases carry a greater risk to the runner for interference because of the lack of any exemption lane. I'm in the camp that everyone knows the INTENT behind running the way MM ran here. All mlb players have been instructed to run this way long before reaching the majors.
The way the rule book is written you have to meet certain criteria to be called out. There are separate sections in the rule book for retiring a batter and retiring a runner. Retiring a batter specifically includes the rule at first base, and it is specific to the batter and first base. It's not written as an exemption in the rule book, it lists the criteria for calling the batter out, and requires that all criteria is met. There is no similar rule for a runner in the rule book, and the rule for a runner states you must intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. If MLB wanted to make intentionally interfering with the throw or a fielder taking the throw then they need to write that as a rule.
@@TPinesGold manny’s intent was to be hit by the thrown ball. He was successful. The running lane is to protect fielders fielding a throw from the plate area. Freeman was on his knees and shoulder have thrown the ball to his pitcher.
Not quite. On the way to first the runner is more exposed to interference - in addition to the interference possible elsewhere he is also liable to be out for accidental interference with a throw going to first. The runner's lane only protects against this accidental interference, not other interference, which cannot be called at all at the other bases.
But runner interference refers to interfering with a fielder, not the ball. Meaning, hindering a fielder's physical ability to catch a batted or thrown ball. Getting between a fielder with the ball, and the base he likely will throw it to, isn't physically hampering anyone.
@@donsheffler I don't think so. Both 6.01(a)(10) and 5.09(b)(3) state that a runner is out for intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. The wording does NOT say "a fielder, fielding a thrown ball" as you suggest. Linley and other commenters refer to specific criteria as to what constitutes intentional vs non-intentional interference with a thrown ball. I am not able to find these defining criteria for intentional in the rule book. I agree that it is subjective for an umpire to discern what is in a baserunner's thoughts (ie, intent) solely by observed action. However, if a style of baserunning is taught and routinely practiced solely as an effective strategy of inhibiting being put out, I believe that this makes the judgement of intent simple and clear.
while I understqand what the rule is, I certainly do not agree with it. If youre not going to have a runners lane at 2nd base, 3rd base and home, why have one at 1st base? And since interference doesnt have to be intentional, a play like this is an obvious attempt to interfere "legally". Wouldnt be surprised to see MLB address this one in the off season
They probably have it because it happens so frequently down the first base line on bunts. These types of plays are very rare that it hasn't warranted a rule to address it.
There’s nothing to address. Intentional interference is already covered. Trying to limit where runners can run will just cause more problems than it solves.
@@mptr1783 1st base is unique. Not only is a force play always available, but the runner has the option to run past the base if he gives up on advancing.
Runners already on base already choose their own starting point with their lead off so you can’t really define the lane they can be in. Batters have to start within a foot or so of home plate. Also the most common plays for RLI are bunts where the batter has some control over where he is sending the ball to be fielded. Runners don’t control where the ball goes so it’s not like they’re creating an interference play on their own.
I appreciate all the feedback but nobody really addressed my concerns. Machado clearly saw where Freeman was and knew he was on his knees. He obviously(intentionally?) veered into the direct line. Smart play on his part but IMO, its intentional interference to look unintentional. I have no dog in the fight either so don't say I must be an LA fan lol
How could Manny interfere? He is running away from Freeman towards 2nd base with his eyes forward. He has no clue what side of the bag that Freeman threw towards. I call bull-chit on the so called "Analysts" you bring up AND the question I would ask you is WHO are these so called "Experts"? These so called "Experts" are as usual pontificating just to be seen and heard. IF you need to instantly run and grab The Rules Book for this No Call, then obviously YOU too need to be seen and heard. This is a Lazy Post.
I can't figure out who youre directlng your insults at, but to say that Manny didnt know where Freemans throw was going to go is ridiculous since he saw where he fielded it and he certainly can see where the 2nd baseman is setup on the bag. At the very least that straight line should be protected for the defense, but since its not in the rulebook, good for him for getting away with it
@@mptr1783 "At the very least that straight line should be protected for the defense," How so? What if Freeman was directly behind Machado and Machado was perfectly in between Freeman and second base? What then? The circumstances of every play would be different and there is no way a rule like that could work short of designating a running lane between each base such as the one from home to first.
@@mptr1783 Good points. But for me the breakdown on this play is everyone knew the ball was going towards second base and that's leaving out the possibility that Freeman might even throw into the outfield since he was on his knees fielding that play. My gripe is purely on the fact that "possibly" Manny was being nefarious in his baserunning. That's what I call phony baloney bushwhack diatribe. I get it, these "influencers" need views. I'd watch more IF they were fact than merely "what if" types of scenarios. Society gets dumbed down a little bit more with each Posting. Enjoy the rest of The Playoffs! 👋
@@mptr1783 I picked The Phillies to Win It All at the beginning of the season. I figured they had a bit of a chip on their shoulder from losing last years Finale. For me this whole season and post season has absolutely Delivered The Goods! Fans needed this. As for my REDS...we have some awesome talent and now that Francona in driving the bus...we might have a chance of contending down the road! At the end of the day I always remind myself "it's just a game" and I'll be okay no matter who wins! MOO From COW-lumbus, Ohio
The funniest part about this play is that everyone is in agreement that it is interference, though they call it "legal" interference ("smart play"). I don't care how the rule is written as, from a visual standpoint it makes it look as though deliberate cheating is part of the game. It is a rulebook that need to grow up a little.
It's a rulebook that needs to be understood better, lol. It's not interference because that word has a specific meaning, that the runner hindered a fielder (physically). And the only way to interfere with a "thrown ball" is to see a *thrown ball* and then purposely move their body or a body part into the trajectory of that ball.
clickbait by using a word with multiple definitions in the title without specifying which. Did he interfere by the common English usage? Absolutely. Did he break the rule called "interference" in the rulebook? Absolutely not.
There are so many dumb rules in baseball. Can get rid of probably 100. One rule that should be is runners can't run on the infield grass. It's a simple black and white rule that should be implemented
Sometimes a fielder is on the dirt and in the way of the runner. The runner must not interfere with the fielder making a catch attempt so they have to run on the grass. These rules are part of the nuance of baseball and what makes the game great.
so the runner also cant veer OUTSIDE of the baseline? even when rounding a base? where do the limits on where the baserunner can go stop? He cant leave the base LINE? He can't overrun first? where do the limitations stop?
@@rickwilson9508 have you seen a baseball diamond? The width of the dirt between first, second and third are huge. Just stay off the infield grass or your out, black and white. From home to first and from third to home, stay on the dirt or outside the line. Again, if you are in the infield it's an out. Simple rules.
@@joshuaanderson4090 are there MLB stadiums without grass or turf infields? Rule will be the same for all parks. In the infield grass you are out. If there is a difference between parks it'll be negligible
Law professor (and technically a softball umpire) here, this video is incorrect. The rule, > It is interference by a batter or runner when: [he] fail[s] to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. Nowhere in the wording of that rule does it suggest that the intentional interference has to come ***after*** the ball is thrown. The semantic relationship between "interfering" and when the ball is thrown is ambiguous at best. All it says is that it is interference if the runner intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. So... there has to be three things: Interference: the ball hits off Manny - check. Intentionality: seems pretty clear that Manny changes route on purpose - check. A thrown ball: Freddie threw the ball - check. It meets all three requirements per the rule; it's interference and Machado could (should in my opinion) be called out. None of those "Clues for Intentional Interference" are in the rulebook. I do recognize that this is a judgment call, and obviously I understand that it may be ruled this way conventionally, but per the letter of the rule, it is not per se legal, nor is it definitive.
Excuse me “professor”, but you want semantic so I’ll give you semantic . Thrown is the past tense(participle) of throw, correct? So the ball has to be thrown, to … be “thrown”. Ball in hand = no throw. Ball leave hand = thrown. So yes, it absolutely does imply the ball has to be in the air to be interfered. The rulebook used precise language. You would know, “professor”
How do you interfere with a thrown ball before it is thrown? If you truly are a law professor, you know rules/laws need to be interpreted. Courts do this all the time. A law is interpreted in court and that sets the standard. In this case, MLB has interpreted this rule and the actions of MM as not interference.
"technically" a softball umpire. lol. At the end of the day, the rule book has NO restrictions on WHERE the runner can run unless a tag attempt occurs. No tag attempt; No limit on where he can run. SAFE
He deliberately ran into the path where the ball would be thrown. NO baserunner going from 1st to 2nd is going to "accidentally veer" onto the friggin' infield grass. Dirty ball (typical, it's Manny Machado) and he got away with it.
Not dirty at all. Baseball has many nuances like this and that's what makes the game great. He did exactly as any good base runner would do. You don't "Get Away With" an action that is perfectly legal.
Nothing "dirty" about knowing the rules and utilizing them. A dirty play is trucking the catcher or sliding into the 2nd baseman, not running onto the grass like the rulebook says you can.
@@larkwyll7351 He did run in a manner to make the throw more difficult, but that is legal and he did not make any movement to intentionally interfere after the throw was made. The bottom line is that no rule was violated.
@@alanhess9306 That's fine. I was speaking to that the league should amend the rule in the off-season to stop runnining on the infield diamond grass as being meta for a base runner. That shouldn't be part of baseball imo just as running by an infielder while a pop-up is in the air and screaming loudly in their ear as you jog by to startle them. Its not the spirit of the game we want to see.
@@larkwyll7351 There are no restrictions on where a runner may run (unless a tag is attempted) so why are people hung up with running on the grass? This is smart base running so why take that away from the offense?
@visarr he intentionally got between Rojas and the thrown ball. Part of the rule is you can't prevent a fielder from catching a thrown ball. Umps blew it. This is always a tough judgement call, which is why replays should be allowed.
@@92retsekoj He didn't look back after the ball was thrown. Manny didn't know what was going on behind him. He deduced it, but he didn't know. The key is the word "thrown" which is past tense. He can do whatever he wants prior to when the throw becomes thrown.
So, Judge puts a hand up sliding into 2B and that is interference? Machado deliberately runs to the inside of the baseline (not the base path!) and this is not interference? This makes no sense. Why else is Machado running to the left like? To break up the play! If we need to re-write the rules, let’s re-write the rules but as written it’s improbable that these two plays are called differently…
As noted in the video, the rule says the ball has to be thrown. You can run wherever you want before that. Waiving your hands is not running, so that is not protected by the rule. But Machado can run to the left to break up the play if the ball hasn't been thrown. It's the fielder's job to avoid Machado with their throw. Once they make the throw, the runner cannot move in an unpredictable motion to break up the play.
Judge does the unnecessary hand thing every time he slides. That really should be interference since it's intentional, but I don't recall it being called as such?
@@jaywung7616 Yes. He did it this season, it hit him and he was called out for interference. The play was covered here on the Close Call Sports YT channel…
@@jaywung7616 It would only be called as such if the ball hits him, or otherwise his action interferes with a thrown ball. 99% of the time it does neither, so he "gets away with it". He got caught this year, and that's the risk he takes with it. That's his prerogative.
It wasn’t a tag play, it was a hit ball with the defense trying to get the lead runner. As far as manny went inside (3 or 4 ft onto the grass) is what is in question. Being that the fielder had his angle blocked intentionally as the play was at second, I believer should be interference. If the rule doesn’t call that, it should be changed.
It only matters where the runner is runner's lane, and when a tag attempt is made. He is legally allowed to run to second via the pitcher mound if he wanted to
Not sure how it can be obstruction. Or what that has to do with what happened here. No fielders who weren't fielding the ball (really no fielders at all) attempted to obstruct Machados path.
Of course he intentionally interfered with a thrown ball, he directly looked at where Freeman fielded it and knew what angle the throw would be going 2nd and INTENTIONALLY ran into that lane, unless of course you think he was just running on the grass as a coincidence. Show me another play this year where Machado was running on the infield grass going to second. You can't I promise you. And the fact that Roberts didn't even argue? Most overrated manager in all of baseball.
The runner can run wherever he wishes. Running on the grass has absolutely nothing to do with this play. This was not interference. Roberts didn't argue because unlike you, he knows the rules.
@@alanhess9306 ump admitted he wasn't even looking at Machado so Roberts should have at least asked the other umps if Machado interfered, because despite the ridiculous fact that Machado can run wherever he wants, even in the bullpen apparently, he can't intentionally move into the path of the ball and he definitely looked behind him, Roberts at least should have questioned the umps as to whether that was the case. You know umps have a long history of blowing big calls in playoff and he may have convinced them to change the call. To just sit there and let Freeman and his shortstop argue the call is ridiculous.
@@JeffreyMorgan-q7s Because the ump may not have seen what Manny did is irrelevant since no rule was violated. Manny looked to see where Freeman was and ran in a way to make the throw more difficult. Manny was no looking at Freeman when the throw was made. Roberts admitted the call was correct.
Machado is obviously veering to the infield grass to obstruct a thrown ball coming. This is semantics and he should have been called out. Its ok but the league should amend the language in the off-season as it is bush league to run on the infield grass. Running on the infield grass is not "making your own lane". Baseball runners never have a reason to run on the infield grass other than to avoid a double play through from a middle infielder to 1st base from a head on collision where they are already out from the infielder at 2b. The only reason to go on the grass other than avoid taking a ball to the face is to obstruct a thrown ball and break up a double play like this scenario. The rule isn't apparently explicit so the league will need to amend it in the off-season to avoid this being repeated.
Yeah, following the rules *by the letter of the rule* is "semantics". But that's why clearly worded rules are better than vague ones. This one is clearly worded, and he did not violate it. Because multiple qualifiers from the rule didn't apply.
@@knubbelidoo"A thrown ball" could mean past tense or a ball yet to be thrown. It is semantics in that way and unclear. The umpires are ruling consistently on the scenario to only interpret 'thrown ball' as having been released from hand. Obviously the runners intent by veering left well onto the infield grass is to interfere with a 'thrown ball'. So yes it is semantics how the league is interpreting these plays.
@@knubbelidoo I'll word it differently for you. Was Machado struck by a ball that was thrown? The runner's intent to run 3-4 feet inside the infield diamond grass was to interfere with any ball that would be thrown in the space of time it took him to run to 2nd base. The runner doesn't care that the ball isn't airborn already, their intent is to block all balls that are thrown after he gets positioned on the grass well inside the regular base path on the dirt.
Lol ironic hearing Arod explain how you're taught to handle that play. He would've just swatted it outta the glove.
That was Jeter, wasn't it?
@michaeltangeman156 definitely arod lol
@@jackl6121 I stand corrected! The camera in my mind's eye had Jeter running to first knocking it out of the firstbaseman's mitt...but my memory was wrong!
@@michaeltangeman156a -rod is a cheater.
@@michaeltangeman156your camera is broken. Jeter played with class.
Was wondering when CCS would do this one, great job! The fact that i already knew what you were going to say is a testament to how well you've explained this rule before! 😊
I wasn't sure, but still guessed correctly only because of this channel.
A Rod talking out of his @$$? Im shocked, SHOCKED!
really, coming from the guy who swatted a ball out of a fielders mitt and acting like that was ok when it happened lol
Yeah, I was gonna say - A-Rod is the LAST person to comment on this rule.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Love the Dodgers reactions, especially the first baseman saying he'd do same, no complaints, "good" play
Rule 7.08(b) intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball (NOTE: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not)
@@gsuandre5579 Thanks for reading us a rule. He did none of that.
@donsheffler what he didnt do?? You can see him on the right side of the lane, look back to where Freeman is, and right away does a hard cut to the left. Is that not intentional??? Is not that interference because of the intention?? He didn't decide to run that way he saw where Freeman was and intentionally changed his running to the base to be between Freeman and 2nd base.
@@gsuandre5579
Sure, he intentionally (and legally) changed his path.
Machado did not commit interference with a throw, because no throw had yet happened. Once the throw is released, he makes no intentional movement other than legally advancing toward 2nd base.
Any adjustment of the base path is legal because there is no tag attempt.
In order to get interference with the throw, he must make some other act besides running to 2nd. You must see an arm, leg, etc. reach to block the ball or the fielder receiving the throw.
@@gsuandre5579 He didn’t intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. Words have meaning.
Manny ran where it would be harder for the first baseman to make a clean accurate throw without hitting him. It’s the fielder’s job to find a way to throw to the base without hitting the runner. The first baseman can throw a couple feet to Manny’s left, or a couple feet to his right, and still hit the shortstop with a good throw to get the force out. Manny has no control over where the first baseman will actually throw the ball. The first baseman made the error by hitting Manny.
Much as I dislike agreeing with MM, it makes perfect sense that A-Roid would be wrong, and Roberts is right. Good move, good no-call.
Google rule mlb 7.08
@@92retsekoj I googled it. I didn't see anything in there that Manny violated.
@@92retsekoj Rule 7.08 does not exist in the Official Baseball Rules. Chapter 7 only goes to section 4, but I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know the rules to cite the book correctly. The rule you're TRYING to cite is 5.09(b)(1) which states "A runner is out when He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;" A rule that is discussed in this video and Manny does not violate, as there's no tag attempt. Try again next time, bud.
@@tw1nn319you must be a riot at parties
So the book only goes to section 4 you say? But then you cite 5.09(b)(1), which I would assume is in a section at least one higher than 4.
When I was watching three Hall of Famers on the Fox aftergame show getting this *ALL WRONG* I was losing my mind. Kudos to live game announcers John Smoltz and Joe Davis in real-time getting this right, and explaining it well, when it happened.
Big Papi got it right, you hear his voice in this video. I never expected Big Papi to be the rules epxert...
@@sfan2767 While Papi said "Smart play by Manny right there" he did also conclude that Manny got away with something and could have been called for interference. All three of them agreed Manny should have been called on it but for some judgment call by the ump. Arod basically said if Freeman had thrown the ball right into Manny's back he would have gotten the interference call, which is untrue. They were all wrong. This isn't interference at any level of baseball.
he did look back at where the fielder was and he knew from this where the throwing lane was and then he ran into the grass to interfere with the probable throwing lane but if that's not in the rule its not in the rule and its just a heads up play but it was intentional
Yes, he intentionally ran where he thought was the highest probability of being between the first baseman and second base itself. But it was only a probability that a throw would hit him, because he wasn't looking and wasn't actively tracking and trying to intercept a ball. Since in the rules he can run anywhere he wants, and since the only reason at that point he got hit was because a fielder threw the ball at him, he did nothing wrong.
@@donsheffler right. since it's not a part of the rules its just a heads up play
When I first saw this play I was able to think through the rules and come to the correct conclusion thanks to CCS’s prior videos. Confirmed with your follow up here. Thank you Lindsay!
I looked at my wife when this happened and said, I can't wait for ccs to explain this one. Haha great job and thanks!
Such a terrible rule. It should be umpire discretion on whether or not a runner deviates from his path to interfere with a throw.
There is no path to deviate from. The runner can run anywhere he wants. And, he didn't "interfere" with a throw. He got in the way and Freeman threw it anyway. On the fielder.
Of course, he “interfered” with the throw. The question is whether it is illegal, or not.
For those not familiar with the common interpretation, it seems logical that when Machado intentionally alters his path, he is interfering.
The rule, as written, could support this. But the interpretation requires some other act or movement besides the altering of a path to the base.
@@MwD676 I considered that the word "interfered" as it is used in the rule book means the action was illegal. When an ump determines "Interference" he is calling an illegal action. So of all the ways we could describe what Manny did, like veering in front of, blocking or deflecting, or getting in the way of, or screening, then only if they resulted in illegal action would the word "interfere" be appropriate. It's kind of like a "foul tip". Just ticking the ball foul does not create a foul tip. If it is not caught before hitting something or landing on the ground, it is a foul ball and not a foul tip. If it is caught by the catcher directly, it is a foul tip and is thus a strike, unlike a foul ball. In a similar way, "interfering" is illegal and has a penalty. There really isn't any such thing as legally interfering.
@@donsheffler According to the current rule you are correct. Like I said, it's a terrible rule. The rule needs to change. It should be an illegal action
@@alexh8613 You mean according to the current rules, plural. You're being vague about which rule is a "terrible rule" because honestly you don't really understand the rules that exist. What he does is perfectly legal for a number of reasons; there is no one rule which says he can do that. It's just that of all the rules that govern running the bases and interfering with fielders, and interfering intentionally with the ball, Manny's action doesn't break any rules at all. So when you say "it needs to change", you'll need to be more specific because you don't seem to even understand why it's legal in the first place.
1. deviating from running path: There is no running path. He can run wherever he wants. A running path is only established for a runner at the moment someone is trying to tag that runner. So with all that info, how/why would you change it just to make it so this one weird occurrence can't occur? Well, you can't, is the answer. You'd have to change some other rules too.
2. interfering with a fielder. Well, runner interference of a fielder only happens when the runner is sufficiently close to a fielder to either make contact with him or at least hinder the fielder's physical ability to field a batted or thrown ball. Right off, this rule isn't even relevant to this play because Manny is nowhere near a player, let alone near a player trying to catch a ball.
3. interfering with at thrown ball. This can only happen intentionally, meaning a runner would have to see a thrown ball in flight and then swat at it or stick a body part in front of it in order to make contact. Manny never saw a thrown ball. Since this kind of interference requires intentional action, that means it can't happen unintentionally. If Manny can't see the thrown ball, Manny can't interfere with the thrown ball. If you propose to make it so that any contact between a runner and a thrown ball is interference - again, because you don't like how the Manny play happened - you would be fundamentally changing how the game is played. You have no idea how many times runners are hit with thrown balls through absolutely no fault of their own. That's because a runner and a ball are usually heading to the same pinpoint spot and as each gets closer to that target spot the likelihood that they'll make contact gets closer and closer to 100%. It would be an absurd circus of confusion to put into the hands of the umpires a decision-making process which has to determine if the runner was running in a particular area just to get hit with a ball vs circumstantially. And that is, if it is even a wise idea to outlaw a runner from strategically getting in the way in the first place.
Like Freeman said he would have done the same thing as a runner, and every base runner does do the same thing. They are taught from little league to intentionally put themselves in the most likely path of a throw.
Great video guys.
Great explanation. Thanks for another interesting review.
Wow. Ccs is doing post season this year!
Change the rule theres no place for this in baseball. Its blatant premeditated intent to block a throw.
Thank you Linds!!!!
Are you gonna do those replay reviews from Saturday's games? They were pretty controversial, and are least one (Jazz Chisholm's steal) led directly to the game-winning run
Dodger fans(I'm one of them) watched as Kiké did the same thing in game 5 of the World Series just weeks after this. Good base running all around.
As Freddie Freeman himself said.. We're taught to do that. Because it hits in the back... You're never going to get that call... only when you actually react to the throw and get into the path will you ever get that INT call (excpet as Lindsay pointed out... RLI)... Smart heads up base running. It's telling when during interviews when the coach and player of the OTHER team say that too.
Just so we are clear…and I am not saying it applies to the situation here but…
If an umpire makes or doesn’t make a call are you saying they can just go to the umpire and state, “Well, we’ve always been taught to do things that way…” and the umpire should then reverse the call to favor the team of the player making that statement?
@@1969EType Only if you want to get tossed... still, it is how they are taught... get yourself into the expected path of the throw. We as umps are taught on this play, only call INT if the player makes a move in reaction to the actual throw.. in this case.. he's moving in response to the possible throw... no call should be done. Still, it's how players are taught.. I was taught that when I played in my youth.. as a HS umpire I know they still teach it today.. Hell, at third you lead off in foul territory.. retreat to the base in fair territory.. why.. if you get hit with a batted ball in foul.. it's nothing.. but if retreating you get hit in the back with a throw.. it's also nothing.. not to say it always works.. but it's how you're coached to play.. and how we as umps are taught to call it. And as a player.. you should never argue with the umpires.. that what you manager is for.
@@1969EType No, since it's a non reviewable call, you can't argue the ump's decision, if you do you'll get tossed. It's more of a if it was called you lost and if it doesn't you won. In general terms, it's a quite clear call: if the runner sees the path of the throw and makes a move to get in the way then it's called
I’ve umpired a few games…it was a rhetorical question…
@@1969EType When someone says "we're taught to run that way" I take it to mean that this is how blatantly legal it is, being a strategy which is taught to players at all levels to employ. This would not be a thing to use to argue with an ump.
Every baserunner that has ever played past coach pitch learns 1 important thing, that the coach repeats, Every time they get to 3rd... DOWN IN FOUL, BACK IN FAIR... Why, back in fair, because it closes the throwing lane with the chance of deflecting the ball and scoring. . .
This is No different
Also, as we see in the video, a runner on third sees a grounder to the third baseman and knows a throw is coming home... he veers super hard left into the grass in the diamond and then runs at the plate directly between the third baseman and home. It is highly legal and highly effective. Manny has probably had to deal with this a hundred times and would be a major factor in his knowledge of the tactic in the first place.
Thank you
I think this interpretation is incorrect. The hard part about these calls is showing intent. The runner can accidentally block the throw and get hit by the ball... but your take is wrong that just because the ball has not been thrown that he can do what he wants.
It's clearly stated that the fielders have the right of way to make a play on the ball (thrown or not). The runner is not allowed to even obstruct the view or distract the fielder. He has to stay out of their way. It's his obligation to let the play happen without intentionally "interfering" (and in some specific cases, even unintentional interference is listed in the rules). This is clearly stated in 6.01 . That's the whole point of the right of way clause.
So, Machado cannot intentionally try to interfere with a throw. That's it. That's all the information you need. It's clearly stated. Did he intentionally block the right of way of the fielders? If you think yes, he should be out. However, if you think that he was doing so to avoid a tag, or any other reason other than purposely interfering with the play.. then its not interference.
Honestly, I think people try to hard to look at the specific wording. Every specific situation isn't going to be listed. The whole point of the interference rule is to prevent the runner from interfering, especially intentionally. They made it a point to state the runner has to stay out of the fielder's way. If you are trying to rationalize the fact that a player intentionally put himself in the path of the ball, but its not "interference" even though he was intentionally trying to interfere.... then you aren't truly comprehending the rule.
That being said, it's a smart play. It doesn't get called as much as it should of, and its an easy out if he doesn't get in the way.
In honesty, I quit reading once you suggested that fielders have right to field a thrown ball.
Sure, the fielder is not liable for obstruction when he attempts to field a thrown ball. But if there is contact with the runner and fielder, or runner and ball, it is NOTHING. Definitely not runner interference.
@MwD676 i stopped reading when you ignored the part that i wrote saying "intentionally interfere with a thrown ball". Literally written in the rules
@@nickr7437
Literally not what happened here.
Machado legally altered his base path…prior to any throw. He then UNINTENTIONALLY impedes the throw.
I did not mean to offend, but simply was short on time to read your long post. You start with an incorrect assumption of the rules. Then go on to expound upon your thoughts which further dilute the specificity of the language in the rules.
My concise 2 paragraphs would help explain that, if you would read it.
@MwD676 fair enough. The interpretation does depend on whether you think this was done intentionally or not.
Machado is allowed to run wherever he wants. The only exception would be to run somewhere to intentionally interfere with the person fielding or making a play on a thrown ball.
The rule interpretation is pretty straightforward imo. The runner has to try and stay out of the way of fielders. The fielders are given "the right of way". The rules make no distinction on whether the ball was or wasn't thrown yet, only on the intent to interfere. The whole section is written to avoid the offense being impeded by a base runner.
Intent is subjective, and that is why this call is not reviewable. I just think it's clear he was purposely putting himself in the way of the throw.
@@nickr7437
Again, the fielder has right-of-way on a batted ball-That is it.
You are trying to apply this to thrown balls. There is no right-of-way on thrown balls. In fact, it can easily still be obstruction on a thrown ball if the fielder blocks the path early or the ball in flight is not near enough to the fielder.
That is your main misconception, and it leads to further confusion as you try to get into the minutia.
Arod has always talked out of his ass.
1) when he left Seattle for Texas he said it wasn't about the money
2) calling out I got it to a short stop fielding a pop-up - I wasnt talking to him
3) slapping the ball out of the glove of the fielder at first base- that's legal
4) denying using PED's - I didn’t do that
Got away already!
This is fine. Within the rules and a heads up vet move by a veteran player but when he’s intentionally spiking players at first base while blowing bubblegum, it is uncalled for.
Manny has a history of being sensitive and playing dirty when his feelings are hurt.
I respect his talent as a player but i despise his ill intentions as a human.
What I’m referring to his kick to Aguilar and his shoe spike to Pearce as he casually ran to first blowing bubbles.
As a batter you can literally strike out but if you touch the catcher’s glove by a whisker, that’s considered interference and the batter is rewarded 1st base, however, what Manny did is perfectly ok? Hopefully MLB will address that and change it during the offseason. It’s total nonsense
Top tier base running
Interesting that Mm hates the Dodgers when they went out of their way to trade for him. !?
To be fair, A-Rod's never been right about anything in his entire life.
Except for the fact he did look back to see Freeman play the ball... 😢
Yes he looked back and determined where Freeman was and where Freeman most likely would throw from, if throwing to second base. All just possibilities. Freeman might have moved to a better place to make the throw. He may have tossed it more to the side, or softly over Manny. He may have decided just to pull it in and make the play to first base. In the end, Manny never a saw a thrown ball. No interference.
Good point. Manny didn't look back.
There is no reason to look back. You are looking at the fielder in front who is setting up exactly where the ball is coming. If the fielder was savvy he could decoy the runner by moving out of position but it would be tough at this level of baseball. The thrower wants a target and the ball is coming in to the receiver too hot to try and fake a move and return to make the play.
Reminds me of Reggie Jackson in the 76 world series when he got caught in a run down and put his hip into a throw. The Yankees ended up beating the Dodgers. My feelings are it was just a bad throw. Freddy could put a little arc to it and lolly popped it over Machado. It just was a heads up play by Machado. I think it is fairly common for a runner to cheat over a few feet and try to cut off the angle.
Reggie saw the ball and purposely put a body part in the path of the ball already in the air so he would make contact with it. Interference.
Manny ran in an area he could safely guess would be Freeman's throwing lane. Freeman then hit Manny. Never interference.
@@donsheffler just one of those things like a batter can't lean into a pitch and get hit by the pitch. It is a rule that I have never seen in my life get called? It is the same deal with the Reggie play. Don't throw the ball close to the runner and you won't run the risk of the ball hitting the runner. Plain and simple.
Kinda amazing. The Dodgers shut down the Padres thru the whole series after this play. Without this play the Dodgers domination would have been much greater.
In some of these instances it is clear the runner is deliberately moving into the path of the yet-to-be thrown ball because, duh!
Moving into a path and hoping the fielder doesn't find a way to throw around or over you, is legal. Yes, that is a running strategy, which is taught to players at all levels of baseball. It's the fielder's mistake if he doesn't throw over or around the runner..
That's only 2 or 3 this year alone. The same kind of play early in the season - folks aren't playing attention.
Yes, this happens regularly. Usually it is the runner on third, veering into the infield grass during a grounder to the third baseman, when a play will be coming to the plate.
He didn't have to look back. He lined himself up with the players glove on second. Lol.
But the first baseman still has to throw the ball. He could throw to the left, the right, or softly over the runner, OR, he could decide to make a play elsewhere like first base. The point is, getting hit by the ball is the fault of the fielder throwing that ball.
Baseball interference rules are nonsensical. This wasn't interference, but earlier this year Juan Soto got called for interference when he was literally standing on second base. Rules need to have some level of consistency.
I'm assuming you are referring to the iff the problem with that play is he wasn't on second he was lunging for it and interfered
Your memory must be warped. Soto wasn't *on* second base. He sauntered on back toward second in a slow walk, and was only lunging toward second base as the shortstop was backing up into his space. Textbook interference.
Of course it is intentional. It is base running 101. Unless the fielder receiving the ball decoys you it is simple to tell where the ball is coming from and you should try to put yourself in its path. Even old, fat softball players know this :) However, it will very rarely be called if it is even somewhat skillfully executed. It's probably the most common and easiest cheat in the game.
But if it is legal, it is not a “cheat.”
It *never* gets called because it is not a "cheat" at all.
@@donsheffler You can't intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
@@MwD676 You can't intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
@@effthegop Of course you can. It’s right in the rules. One way a runner is out is if he “intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.”
That’s the actual wording.
Specifically this means the runner with consideration and intent makes contact with a thrown ball. If you’re in a pickle and literally reach up and swat away a thrown ball, that’s intentional interference. Same with sticking out your leg, hip, shoulder, or head in order to contact a ball you see in flight from a throw.
What is impossible is for a runner to *UNintentionally* interfere with a thrown ball. If the runner doesn’t see a thrown ball and then go out of his way to make contact with it, then if it hits him it is accidental and he *can’t* be called for interference on that. This is even if - as in Manny’s situation - the runner purposefully puts himself between a fielder with the ball, and a base that the fielder might throw it to. That’s why it wasn’t called on Manny and that’s why none of the Dodgers argued it.
Manny making a legal dirty play is crazy! Haha
Yup, as much as I hated it that was smart from Manny. Still dislike the guy 😂
He is a hall of famer.
Heads up play. In fact after nearly nailing Roberts, I'm obliging Manny's desire to be hit by a throw every time. His OBP would be insane.
" "the broadcaster" is incorrect" :D burn!
by the rule book, it was legal base running by machado. the baseline rule only applies during a tag attempt, meaning a runner can’t go more than 3 feet left or right to avoid a tag. otherwise, a base runner establishes his own base path
This should have fell under 'DISGRACE TO THE GAME' rules. This wasn't "good base running", this was an intentional attempt to prevent the throw to the person covering the base. I've never seen Freddie Freeman run that far into the infield to try and stop a throw.
Running in the expected throwing lane is taught to players at every level. The best baserunners do this and yes it's 100% legal, and 100% good base running.
@@tervalas good coaching is to run at the fielder’s glove. 13 year old players are taught this basic baseball skill
The only player I hate more than MM historically has been Arod, so fitting he doesn't know the rule at all
I can't stand Machado but he's played this series to his advantage. He's done everything to get under the Dodger's skin but at the same time has been a big leader for the Padres while the Dodger's still think they're at summer camp with the camp counselor Roberts.
He is a hall of famer.
Could you do one on the mookie bets possible abandonment please?
I agree! He made no effort to go to 2nd base.
@@visarr there was an almost identical play in college this year which the runner was called out on abandonment. I can see either way. Id be interested to see a breakdown
Think there was one a couple years back, Kansas vs. Texas Tech.
Base runner in that game went about as far as Betts did here.
[Difference might be that the umpires made a clear home run call in that game. MLB crew gave Betts the benefit of doubt since they made no clear call.]
Abandonment has kindof a high bar. Betts didn't come anywhere near crossing the basepath on the way to the dugout. He corrected it fairly quickly.
@@donsheffler you don’t have to go to the dugout for abandonment to apply. Anything that clearly shows you have given up running the bases is grounds for being called out on abandonment. This was called in college just last year, exactly as far as betts did. No significant difference in the rule between levels
@2:05 You can see Machado look back at Freeman to see where he was before he throw the ball to second base. All Machado had to do after that was close the angle on the throw which he did. It a scummy play.
Absolutely heads-up running. It's how they teach it. In fact, Manny has had to throw home on grounders to third, around runners from third who have veered into the infield grass exactly as Manny did on this play. This happens regularly and is not "scummy" in any way. It's perfectly legal and you're trying to make it as hard as possible on the fielder to get an accurate throw to the base.
Yes, he obviously intentionally interfered.
Wrong. Pay attention to the explanation in the video.
@@alanhess9306 I get "the explanation". But he obviously intentionally ran in the path. Or does he always run on the grass when running the bases?
@@Quinn-j6j It doesn't matter where he always runs. The runner can run wherever he wants. The bottom line is there was nothing illegal about where he ran.
Before being an umpire, I was a coach. I used to teach my runners to take their lead off at first base on the grass. Out to the cut but on the grass. Almost every game at the youth and HS level has only two umpires so the BU would be in position B with a runner at 1B only. By being on the grass the runner was between a pickoff throw from the pitcher and the 1st baseman AND the BU did not have a clear view of the base. If he can't see the base, he can't call my runner out on a pickoff.
Doesn't matter anymore because padres choked 😎
Excellent job by Machado, making something out of nothing.
It's a weird one because yes, he intentionally interfered with the throw... But he did it in a completely legal way
@@devonhollands2001 You said it. He intentionally blocked the throw. He cannot intentionally interfere. He could have been called out. He wasn’t.
"Intent is 99% of the law" clearly doesn't apply to baseball rules.
@@vidfirst He cannot be called out because he did not violate a rule. Did you even watch the video?
@alanhess9306 i disagree with the video as conclusion. Firstly, whoever thinks it wasn't intentionally to block the throw is either stupid or in denial.
Secondly, the interference rule makes it clear the that the runner can't get in the way of the fielders intentionally. There are no exceptions listed, even if it doesn't cover this exact scenario.
The bottom line is that if you think he interfered with the throw on purpose, it's literally the point of the interference rule. There is no "purposely interfering with the fielders" in a legal way.
Since it was legal, he did not "interfere." Baseball has very specific language.
Also you're not being specific about what he did.
He did not intentionally run into a throw. He intentionally put his path between a fielder and the base he was going to. Not the same. The player could have and should have found a way to throw off to a side or over the runner. That's on the fielder.
Great video. I initially thought this was at best a bitch (if legal) move, but I was persuaded by Freeman's saying no, We're all taught to do that.
Another question to the experts: At first I thought the throw hit Machado, but it didnt. Would it have made a difference if the the throw hit Machado?
Perhaps you need a better or bigger monitor. Or maybe you're watching it on your phone. Because that ball clearly hit Machado.
@@John-tx1wk haha, you are correct sir. I missed that it did hit him. All the more reason he shouldve been out! Thanks for clarifying
@@mptr1783 Why should he have been out?
@@mptr1783 i dont think you watched the video if you think he should be out for this...
@@mptr1783 LOL you're missing the point. Whether it hit Machado or not, he did nothing wrong and that's why he wasn't called out.
Do you think the language of 5.09(a)(13) needs to change if this is how this play will be ruled? Also, I don't like the standard of "he didn't look back" - he doesn't have to, he's looking at where the shortstop is lined up, these are pros
He looks back to see where the 1st baseman is and then veers to get in his way. While I agree, it doesn't violate the letter of the rule, I'd say it violates the intent of the rule. What other purpose did he veer left for than to intentionally interfere with the throw?
He is certainly intending to make the defensive play more difficult. I’d imagine this sort of play occurs infrequently, however, in part because a fielder seeing the runner in the path he intends to throw the ball will typically adjust and throw from a different angle/position to avoid the runner. Because Machado doesn’t know if the ball will be thrown in the path he takes, it’s hard to say he intentionally interferes with the thrown ball.
When does he look back?
@@babababad Right at the beggining of the play, just when Freeman was making the catch and he's starting to run. It's not a clear "look back" but rather an "over the shoulder glance"
@@ImA1032 he absolutely wanted to be hit with the throw. So what? It’s a legal baseball move. Who are you to question the rules of baseball?
There is no rule against intentionally interfering with the throw to 2nd base, the rule specifically states a thrown ball. That means the ball has to be thrown, the runner needs to see where the ball is going, and then intentionally divert into its path for it to be illegal. It isn't enough to just run where it makes the throw more difficult to the fielder. If MLB wanted to make it illegal to interfere with a throw, they would need to write the rule that way.
It's interesting how this rule is interpreted, because I think everyone would agree that he WAS trying to get hit with the ball, ie his intent was to interfere with the throw. I'm not arguing that the play was called incorrectly, and I understand that baserunners are taught to do exactly this. I just see an argument to be made that the interference rule describes what the runners are doing in these situations.
But the rule has specific wording of a thrown ball.
@@Subangelis Not seeing why that's a hang-up. Like I said, we can all agree that his intent was to get hit with a *thrown ball*. The rule doesn't make any mention of when his actions need to be initiated.
@@johndoe-yw7eb The fact the rule says "thrown ball" implies that the "initiated" point is when the ball is thrown, eg: released. The fact that's how the rule is constantly applied strongly supports that interpretation.
@@johndoe-yw7eb Machado diverted his path before the ball was thrown. Therefore, he did not interfere with a thrown ball.
@@RyanRobbins007 That’s like arguing that the firefighters didn’t save the jumper because they set up the net before he jumped out of the burning building.
Veteran Freddie Freeman was at fault. He should have stood up to throw the ball or to be safe, just go to first and get the one out. He made a rookie mistake, especially after he admitted that he would have done the same thing? Why did he throw it directly at 2nd, and not further out for the 2nd baseman to reach for it. OR to be safe, just step on the bag at first and get the single out SMH
As they say hindsight is 20/20, but yeah, he should have went to first.
No fielder was at first yet, and the throw to second would have been early enough for a double play. When he mentally committed to the throw, Machado was still running a conventional basepath.
@@babababad You have never seen a first baseman toss the ball to the pitcher as the pitcher runs to cover first? For that matter, watch the play, Freeman likely could have easily made it back to first in time. And in regards to when Freeman "mentally committed to the throw", what does that have to do with anything?
I would love to see the term 'provoked [name of rule infractions] introduced into OBR.
Both examples here clearly show that it never was the intention of these runners to make it to the next base as fast as possible, but to leave their initially established running lane in order to interfere with defensive play ...
@@John-tx1wk In the heat of the moment, you commit to a course of action and it can be difficult to change course. Buehler was on the way to first on this play and probably would have beaten Freeman there, but by the time Freeman was making the transfer, Buehler was barely off the mound, and Machado, still running more or less along the baseline, was right in Freeman's field of vision. Machado timed it perfectly so that Freeman had committed to the throw by the time he shifted his basepath.
I would love to see the term 'provoked [name of rule infractions] introduced into OBR.
Both examples here clearly show that it never was the intention of these runners to make it to the next base as fast as possible, but to leave their initially established running lane in order to interfere with defensive play ...
There is no running lane. This fact is explicitly stated in this video
Good day, Sir. I mean no disrespect but there **is no running lane between the bases.** A player could, however illogical, run in a zigzag pattern so long as he is not trying to avoid a tag. Baseball announcers have dumbed this game down so much because of their own laziness or whatever. To me, a professional baseball analyst should be on top of this. In 60+ years of listening to baseball I've yet to see anyone other than Vin Scully know anything beyond the most superficial rules.
I'm obviously not talking about a running lane between bases because I refer to something the runner establishes, not to something that's drawn onto the field ...
I know a 'lane' doesn't exist except for the 3-foot lane.
So 'lane' is really misleading the way I used it here - and autocorrect was not helpful ...
I'm talking about the running line a runner establishes himself, so let's work with that ...
@@MrSnowdon0011 there is no running line. It’s mythological.
@@MrSnowdon0011 a runner never establishes a base path until there is a tag attempt.
Cmon man! Just give SD the win, yall know SD win never win a championship…
Maybe so, but we still get to live in San Diego.
Reach toward the runner as soon as you field the ball. It's tag attempt whether or not you can reach that runner.
If the fielder runs after the runner, it might be interpreted this way, but simply extending an arm in the direction of a runner 40 feet away does not a tag attempt make.
@@babababad Doesn't say anywhere in the rule how close the tag attempt has to be, only that there has to be one. If it can be that much of a judgement call, the umpires could make far less of a stretch to call the play in the video intentional.
This is why the rules need to be detailed and not leave things to interpretation.
@@Desirsar The word "attempt" means something. The rule is clear.
@@donsheffler What does the rule book define as "attempt", then?
@@Desirsar The word has a meaning that is not in dispute. The rulebook doesn't need to redefine the word; it uses the word because it has a clear meaning. Everyone knows that throwing a rock in the direction of the moon is not an attempt to hit the moon. Everyone knows a practice swing between pitches is not an attempt to hit a pitched ball. And everyone knows reaching toward a person 25 feet from you is not an attempt to tag him.
We might refer to umpire school instruction, and/or notes about the rules. Anyone who has spent any time in umpire training has had to deal with the idea of a runner's path being established upon a tag attempt. For a tag attempt to happen, the ball must be in the hand or glove of the fielder, and the fielder must reach or extend in an *attempt* to place a tag on the runner. All to say unless you're trying to stretch the meaning of such a thing to fit some bizarre interpretation of the rule itself, a tag attempt must be a legit, sincere, plausible try at placing a tag.
So you are correct when you say the rule book doesn't say how close a tag attempt needs to be. Why would it? There is no reason to insert the need for measurement in feet and inches of distances between a glove and a runner. If so, the more detail, the more need for interpretation! A legit reach with the ball trying to tag someone, is a tag attempt.
Honestly I am stunned that you would require this level of response to understand that sticking your arm out from 30 feet away doesn't establish a base path, lol.
The rule needs to be updated to include this kind of interference! Manny’s action are intentional! He’s looking at the fielder and running in the way of the throw.
This has been the rule for >100 years. This is definitely not the first time this has happened.
Players are taught to do this, run at the glove of the guy who will receive the throw to make the throw more difficult. This play has likely happened millions of times across all levels for decades.
Why should the rule be changed to make it easier for the defense?
Freeman himself said he would have done the same thing. It's legal and he should have expected it and adjust his throw or just taken the out on first like you do with a well executed bunt
@@joshuaanderson4090 that just means they need to add a rule against the act!!! It’s intentional interference!!!
@@thomasboyd6242you're such a sad boy. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs to be illegal.
@@joshuaanderson4090 well I’d rather be sad than stupid!
@@thomasboyd6242- Then you want a rule for exactly where the runner can be.
You missed Manny looking back before veering left into the throwing lane. That, by definition, is interference.
No it isn't. The ball hadn't been thrown yet.
Nobody missed him looking back. But he just saw where the player was; he didn't see or track a thrown ball. If he doesn't see a thrown ball, he can't interfere with a thrown ball. Just running to the airspace which he believes is the most likely throwing lane for the first baseman, is perfectly legal. It is most certainly not "by definition" interference, lol.
So what's the point of a base line then...
Baseline and base path are 2 different issues
nothing. the base line is a straight line between the bases and it is utilized NOWHERE in the rule book.
There is no baseline between first and second, second and third, or third and home (there is a foul line between third and home but that's not the same thing).
So this is a completely irrelevant comment. Might as well ask what's the point of the hula dancers in the infield.
But we don't have to like it!!!
I did. Go Padres!
This is one of those odd situations where so many people don’t understand the rule BUT in every game we have played in and/or watched, the “path” to 2B or 3B or Home isn’t defined.
Ever stretch out a double? You take a wide path to 2B. Or turn a Double into a Triple? There’s an ‘arc’ to 3B. Or round 3B and head home? Lucky if you don’t take out the 3B Coach on your path.
So we are all quite familiar with how liberal the path is… sorry Trump voters, I used the word liberal… but many seemingly believe Machado was “out of the path”
And runners sometimes run part way and stop, fall down, go back, slip, etc.
There is no rule mandating any of this. A runner doesn't need to go to the bag as fast as he possibly can (I've seen some making this argument) and he can do whatever he wants between the bases.
Yes, usually, it's dumb to not get there as quick as you can but there are clear times when it makes sense to be circuitous or to even stop and watch before deciding what to do.
People are just upset cause the dodgers lost.
wow. i would have called him out.
Good thing you're not an umpire.
what would you have called him out for? and cite the rule please...
@@tw1nn319 hE wAs iN ThE wAy...
@@tw1nn319well obviously he's a dodgers fan and anything that makes his team less likely to win must be nefarious and illegal and therefore they must be out! 😂
@@visarr Yes, he was legally in the way. You can't cite a rule that was violated.
I'm surprised that the explanation seems to say that the lack of a "runner's lane" for bases other than first base provides the baserunner a basis for GREATER freedom from interference. My understanding is that the runners lane to first base gives the runner an exemption for interference if within the lane. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the other bases carry a greater risk to the runner for interference because of the lack of any exemption lane.
I'm in the camp that everyone knows the INTENT behind running the way MM ran here. All mlb players have been instructed to run this way long before reaching the majors.
The way the rule book is written you have to meet certain criteria to be called out. There are separate sections in the rule book for retiring a batter and retiring a runner. Retiring a batter specifically includes the rule at first base, and it is specific to the batter and first base. It's not written as an exemption in the rule book, it lists the criteria for calling the batter out, and requires that all criteria is met. There is no similar rule for a runner in the rule book, and the rule for a runner states you must intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. If MLB wanted to make intentionally interfering with the throw or a fielder taking the throw then they need to write that as a rule.
@@TPinesGold manny’s intent was to be hit by the thrown ball. He was successful. The running lane is to protect fielders fielding a throw from the plate area. Freeman was on his knees and shoulder have thrown the ball to his pitcher.
Not quite. On the way to first the runner is more exposed to interference - in addition to the interference possible elsewhere he is also liable to be out for accidental interference with a throw going to first.
The runner's lane only protects against this accidental interference, not other interference, which cannot be called at all at the other bases.
But runner interference refers to interfering with a fielder, not the ball. Meaning, hindering a fielder's physical ability to catch a batted or thrown ball. Getting between a fielder with the ball, and the base he likely will throw it to, isn't physically hampering anyone.
@@donsheffler I don't think so. Both 6.01(a)(10) and 5.09(b)(3) state that a runner is out for intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. The wording does NOT say "a fielder, fielding a thrown ball" as you suggest.
Linley and other commenters refer to specific criteria as to what constitutes intentional vs non-intentional interference with a thrown ball. I am not able to find these defining criteria for intentional in the rule book.
I agree that it is subjective for an umpire to discern what is in a baserunner's thoughts (ie, intent) solely by observed action. However, if a style of baserunning is taught and routinely practiced solely as an effective strategy of inhibiting being put out, I believe that this makes the judgement of intent simple and clear.
while I understqand what the rule is, I certainly do not agree with it. If youre not going to have a runners lane at 2nd base, 3rd base and home, why have one at 1st base? And since interference doesnt have to be intentional, a play like this is an obvious attempt to interfere "legally". Wouldnt be surprised to see MLB address this one in the off season
They probably have it because it happens so frequently down the first base line on bunts. These types of plays are very rare that it hasn't warranted a rule to address it.
There’s nothing to address. Intentional interference is already covered. Trying to limit where runners can run will just cause more problems than it solves.
@@mptr1783 1st base is unique. Not only is a force play always available, but the runner has the option to run past the base if he gives up on advancing.
Runners already on base already choose their own starting point with their lead off so you can’t really define the lane they can be in. Batters have to start within a foot or so of home plate. Also the most common plays for RLI are bunts where the batter has some control over where he is sending the ball to be fielded. Runners don’t control where the ball goes so it’s not like they’re creating an interference play on their own.
I appreciate all the feedback but nobody really addressed my concerns. Machado clearly saw where Freeman was and knew he was on his knees. He obviously(intentionally?) veered into the direct line. Smart play on his part but IMO, its intentional interference to look unintentional. I have no dog in the fight either so don't say I must be an LA fan lol
How could Manny interfere? He is running away from Freeman towards 2nd base with his eyes forward. He has no clue what side of the bag that Freeman threw towards. I call bull-chit on the so called "Analysts" you bring up AND the question I would ask you is WHO are these so called "Experts"? These so called "Experts" are as usual pontificating just to be seen and heard. IF you need to instantly run and grab The Rules Book for this No Call, then obviously YOU too need to be seen and heard. This is a Lazy Post.
I can't figure out who youre directlng your insults at, but to say that Manny didnt know where Freemans throw was going to go is ridiculous since he saw where he fielded it and he certainly can see where the 2nd baseman is setup on the bag. At the very least that straight line should be protected for the defense, but since its not in the rulebook, good for him for getting away with it
@@mptr1783 "At the very least that straight line should be protected for the defense,"
How so? What if Freeman was directly behind Machado and Machado was perfectly in between Freeman and second base? What then? The circumstances of every play would be different and there is no way a rule like that could work short of designating a running lane between each base such as the one from home to first.
@@mptr1783 Good points. But for me the breakdown on this play is everyone knew the ball was going towards second base and that's leaving out the possibility that Freeman might even throw into the outfield since he was on his knees fielding that play. My gripe is purely on the fact that "possibly" Manny was being nefarious in his baserunning. That's what I call phony baloney bushwhack diatribe. I get it, these "influencers" need views. I'd watch more IF they were fact than merely "what if" types of scenarios. Society gets dumbed down a little bit more with each Posting. Enjoy the rest of The Playoffs! 👋
@@TheStuport great post thank you. Being a Phillies fan I think my goose is cooked
@@mptr1783 I picked The Phillies to Win It All at the beginning of the season. I figured they had a bit of a chip on their shoulder from losing last years Finale. For me this whole season and post season has absolutely Delivered The Goods! Fans needed this. As for my REDS...we have some awesome talent and now that Francona in driving the bus...we might have a chance of contending down the road! At the end of the day I always remind myself "it's just a game" and I'll be okay no matter who wins! MOO From COW-lumbus, Ohio
The funniest part about this play is that everyone is in agreement that it is interference, though they call it "legal" interference ("smart play"). I don't care how the rule is written as, from a visual standpoint it makes it look as though deliberate cheating is part of the game. It is a rulebook that need to grow up a little.
It's a rulebook that needs to be understood better, lol. It's not interference because that word has a specific meaning, that the runner hindered a fielder (physically).
And the only way to interfere with a "thrown ball" is to see a *thrown ball* and then purposely move their body or a body part into the trajectory of that ball.
clickbait by using a word with multiple definitions in the title without specifying which. Did he interfere by the common English usage? Absolutely. Did he break the rule called "interference" in the rulebook? Absolutely not.
There are so many dumb rules in baseball. Can get rid of probably 100. One rule that should be is runners can't run on the infield grass. It's a simple black and white rule that should be implemented
Sometimes a fielder is on the dirt and in the way of the runner. The runner must not interfere with the fielder making a catch attempt so they have to run on the grass. These rules are part of the nuance of baseball and what makes the game great.
so the runner also cant veer OUTSIDE of the baseline? even when rounding a base? where do the limits on where the baserunner can go stop? He cant leave the base LINE? He can't overrun first? where do the limitations stop?
@@rickwilson9508 have you seen a baseball diamond? The width of the dirt between first, second and third are huge. Just stay off the infield grass or your out, black and white. From home to first and from third to home, stay on the dirt or outside the line. Again, if you are in the infield it's an out. Simple rules.
What about fields that have no infield grass, or more or less infield grass than others?
@@joshuaanderson4090 are there MLB stadiums without grass or turf infields? Rule will be the same for all parks. In the infield grass you are out. If there is a difference between parks it'll be negligible
Law professor (and technically a softball umpire) here, this video is incorrect. The rule,
> It is interference by a batter or runner when: [he] fail[s] to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
Nowhere in the wording of that rule does it suggest that the intentional interference has to come ***after*** the ball is thrown. The semantic relationship between "interfering" and when the ball is thrown is ambiguous at best. All it says is that it is interference if the runner intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. So... there has to be three things:
Interference: the ball hits off Manny - check.
Intentionality: seems pretty clear that Manny changes route on purpose - check.
A thrown ball: Freddie threw the ball - check.
It meets all three requirements per the rule; it's interference and Machado could (should in my opinion) be called out. None of those "Clues for Intentional Interference" are in the rulebook. I do recognize that this is a judgment call, and obviously I understand that it may be ruled this way conventionally, but per the letter of the rule, it is not per se legal, nor is it definitive.
Excuse me “professor”, but you want semantic so I’ll give you semantic . Thrown is the past tense(participle) of throw, correct? So the ball has to be thrown, to … be “thrown”. Ball in hand = no throw. Ball leave hand = thrown. So yes, it absolutely does imply the ball has to be in the air to be interfered. The rulebook used precise language. You would know, “professor”
How do you interfere with a thrown ball before it is thrown? If you truly are a law professor, you know rules/laws need to be interpreted. Courts do this all the time. A law is interpreted in court and that sets the standard. In this case, MLB has interpreted this rule and the actions of MM as not interference.
@drewsummers7288 to tell Dave to read the book? Get a grip.
@@Hikayuhuy Love all of the responses here!
"technically" a softball umpire. lol. At the end of the day, the rule book has NO restrictions on WHERE the runner can run unless a tag attempt occurs. No tag attempt; No limit on where he can run. SAFE
He deliberately ran into the path where the ball would be thrown. NO baserunner going from 1st to 2nd is going to "accidentally veer" onto the friggin' infield grass. Dirty ball (typical, it's Manny Machado) and he got away with it.
It’s a video man. Watch it.
Not dirty at all. Baseball has many nuances like this and that's what makes the game great. He did exactly as any good base runner would do. You don't "Get Away With" an action that is perfectly legal.
Nothing "dirty" about knowing the rules and utilizing them. A dirty play is trucking the catcher or sliding into the 2nd baseman, not running onto the grass like the rulebook says you can.
Everyone knows it is actually 'Intentional' Interference.
But I get that the league doesn't wish to review these plays.
Those who "know" it's intentional interference don't know the rules.
@@alanhess9306 I was speaking to the meaning of the words and language used in the rules, not the interpretation of the language in the rule fyi.
@@larkwyll7351 He did run in a manner to make the throw more difficult, but that is legal and he did not make any movement to intentionally interfere after the throw was made. The bottom line is that no rule was violated.
@@alanhess9306 That's fine. I was speaking to that the league should amend the rule in the off-season to stop runnining on the infield diamond grass as being meta for a base runner. That shouldn't be part of baseball imo just as running by an infielder while a pop-up is in the air and screaming loudly in their ear as you jog by to startle them.
Its not the spirit of the game we want to see.
@@larkwyll7351 There are no restrictions on where a runner may run (unless a tag is attempted) so why are people hung up with running on the grass?
This is smart base running so why take that away from the offense?
Rule 7.08 if a runner intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball they are out.
True. If only Manny had done that.
You're not wrong. And that would have applied if the ball had been thrown before Machado moved toward the grass.
@visarr he intentionally got between Rojas and the thrown ball. Part of the rule is you can't prevent a fielder from catching a thrown ball. Umps blew it. This is always a tough judgement call, which is why replays should be allowed.
Rule 7.08 doesnt exist in the 2024 Official Baseball Rulebook... and also he doesn't intentionally interfere, as discussed in the video.
@@92retsekoj He didn't look back after the ball was thrown. Manny didn't know what was going on behind him. He deduced it, but he didn't know. The key is the word "thrown" which is past tense. He can do whatever he wants prior to when the throw becomes thrown.
So, Judge puts a hand up sliding into 2B and that is interference? Machado deliberately runs to the inside of the baseline (not the base path!) and this is not interference? This makes no sense. Why else is Machado running to the left like? To break up the play! If we need to re-write the rules, let’s re-write the rules but as written it’s improbable that these two plays are called differently…
As noted in the video, the rule says the ball has to be thrown. You can run wherever you want before that. Waiving your hands is not running, so that is not protected by the rule. But Machado can run to the left to break up the play if the ball hasn't been thrown.
It's the fielder's job to avoid Machado with their throw. Once they make the throw, the runner cannot move in an unpredictable motion to break up the play.
Judge does the unnecessary hand thing every time he slides. That really should be interference since it's intentional, but I don't recall it being called as such?
@@jaywung7616 Yes. He did it this season, it hit him and he was called out for interference. The play was covered here on the Close Call Sports YT channel…
@@jaywung7616 It would only be called as such if the ball hits him, or otherwise his action interferes with a thrown ball. 99% of the time it does neither, so he "gets away with it". He got caught this year, and that's the risk he takes with it. That's his prerogative.
@@Leafsdude I thought they DIDN'T call interference on Judge? Am I remembering that wrong?
It wasn’t a tag play, it was a hit ball with the defense trying to get the lead runner. As far as manny went inside (3 or 4 ft onto the grass) is what is in question. Being that the fielder had his angle blocked intentionally as the play was at second, I believer should be interference. If the rule doesn’t call that, it should be changed.
Tell us you didn't watch the video without telling us you didn't watch the video
It only matters where the runner is runner's lane, and when a tag attempt is made. He is legally allowed to run to second via the pitcher mound if he wanted to
Easy call obstruction .
Not sure how it can be obstruction. Or what that has to do with what happened here. No fielders who weren't fielding the ball (really no fielders at all) attempted to obstruct Machados path.
You should learn the difference between obstruction and interference. But whatever you call it, no rule was violated.
@alanhess9306
Either way bad call .
@@humbertoantoniolujan3639 Cite a rule that was violated. You only think this was a bad call because you don't understand the rules.
@alanhess9306
Ok maybe you work for ESNP
Of course he intentionally interfered with a thrown ball, he directly looked at where Freeman fielded it and knew what angle the throw would be going 2nd and INTENTIONALLY ran into that lane, unless of course you think he was just running on the grass as a coincidence. Show me another play this year where Machado was running on the infield grass going to second. You can't I promise you. And the fact that Roberts didn't even argue? Most overrated manager in all of baseball.
Yeah, Roberts didn't argue. It's almost like he knew that it was a legal play.
He wasn't looking at it when it was THROWN.
The runner can run wherever he wishes. Running on the grass has absolutely nothing to do with this play. This was not interference. Roberts didn't argue because unlike you, he knows the rules.
@@alanhess9306 ump admitted he wasn't even looking at Machado so Roberts should have at least asked the other umps if Machado interfered, because despite the ridiculous fact that Machado can run wherever he wants, even in the bullpen apparently, he can't intentionally move into the path of the ball and he definitely looked behind him, Roberts at least should have questioned the umps as to whether that was the case. You know umps have a long history of blowing big calls in playoff and he may have convinced them to change the call. To just sit there and let Freeman and his shortstop argue the call is ridiculous.
@@JeffreyMorgan-q7s Because the ump may not have seen what Manny did is irrelevant since no rule was violated. Manny looked to see where Freeman was and ran in a way to make the throw more difficult. Manny was no looking at Freeman when the throw was made. Roberts admitted the call was correct.
Machado is obviously veering to the infield grass to obstruct a thrown ball coming. This is semantics and he should have been called out.
Its ok but the league should amend the language in the off-season as it is bush league to run on the infield grass. Running on the infield grass is not "making your own lane". Baseball runners never have a reason to run on the infield grass other than to avoid a double play through from a middle infielder to 1st base from a head on collision where they are already out from the infielder at 2b. The only reason to go on the grass other than avoid taking a ball to the face is to obstruct a thrown ball and break up a double play like this scenario.
The rule isn't apparently explicit so the league will need to amend it in the off-season to avoid this being repeated.
Wrong. L
Yeah, following the rules *by the letter of the rule* is "semantics".
But that's why clearly worded rules are better than vague ones. This one is clearly worded, and he did not violate it. Because multiple qualifiers from the rule didn't apply.
@@knubbelidoo"A thrown ball" could mean past tense or a ball yet to be thrown. It is semantics in that way and unclear. The umpires are ruling consistently on the scenario to only interpret 'thrown ball' as having been released from hand.
Obviously the runners intent by veering left well onto the infield grass is to interfere with a 'thrown ball'. So yes it is semantics how the league is interpreting these plays.
@@larkwyll7351 Ummm...no. "A thrown ball" can NOT refer to "a ball yet to be thrown".
@@knubbelidoo I'll word it differently for you. Was Machado struck by a ball that was thrown?
The runner's intent to run 3-4 feet inside the infield diamond grass was to interfere with any ball that would be thrown in the space of time it took him to run to 2nd base.
The runner doesn't care that the ball isn't airborn already, their intent is to block all balls that are thrown after he gets positioned on the grass well inside the regular base path on the dirt.
You can see machado turn back and he 100% interfered. Its the umps judgement call.
no. stop crying.