Nobody will change your mind nor JAs. But judgement calls like that which are infrequently made are strange to make on this stage. Furthermore, the throw was clearly bad (you never want your 1B to catch the ball on the foul line side of the bag obviously) and Turner was already past Gurriel when the ball got there.If you want to argue there was no interference with the throw, that’s a judgment call. Doubt always resolved in favor of the fielder. I think it was easy there. But that’s not what most people are arguing. He was not in or exiting the lane.
Is a shitty throw a benefit to the defense under 6.05k? Yep. Sometimes.
here's the clip - as most fast baserunners Turner takes a typical sprinter's approach. Starts low, torso parallel to ground, knees bent, slowly comes upright as he reaches full speed.Yes, that's exactly what should happen, it's not like a right turn, it's just a step to his right to get inside the lines and he has 45 feet to do it.
Apply it consistently and you have no issues.I get that the call pisses people off. The call isn't made a lot but when it is people always get pissed. Fans, coaches and players. It seems like a chickenshit rule but they came up with it for a reason.
But what is the reason. His left foot was on the bag. Right leg in foul territory. He beat the throw. In what way did he interfere with anything?I get that the call pisses people off. The call isn't made a lot but when it is people always get pissed. Fans, coaches and players. It seems like a chickenshit rule but they came up with it for a reason.
Upon further review (slow-mo vids on twitter), every single one of his steps was fully inside the foul line, except for the last one that touched the base. So Jon Abbey deserves at least a partial apology on that count.Rule 5.09 (a)(11) Comment (Rule 6.05(k) Comment): The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.
(bolding mine)(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
If interested, a great commentary here. It was a much closer call because the ball didn’t hit the runner. But most umps say that one was wrong. This is why Smoltz says try to hit the runner. But this is a great discussion to understand the rule.
I don't have that answer as to why the rule exists, just IMO it wasn't a terrible call by the letter of the law.But what is the reason. His left foot was on the bag. Right leg in foul territory. He beat the throw. In what way did he interfere with anything?
Once Rendon hit the HR I stopped giving a shit about the call.Apply it consistently and you have no issues.
It really was. One small gripe I'd have liked to see the three releases side by each as well but really cool and informative.That graphic was fantastic.
Thank you, yes. That's the exact play I was thinking of. It seemed clearly to be interference to me.
you gotta leave stras in for the ninth. this is his season, he isnt coming in tomorrow.
Yup.Slows you down and risks injury. Especially when trying to land on a raised bag. I still don’t understand why they use bags and not plates for all the bases.
Yup.Leave him in until first base runner. I e don't pull a grady
I still talk about the Will Middlebrooks play every day.Yup.
Everyone's gonna forget this call now bc of Rendon and Strasburg. But if the Nats went down in the bottom of that inning and lost it would have been the discussion of the offseason.