Brewers Batter Ruled Out and Manager Ejected. Was It the Correct Call?

CHECK OUT OUR ELITE HITTING AND FIELDING COURSES!
Click the link below to check out our swing course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE SWING and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseball.mykajabi.co...
Click the link below to check out our infield course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING AN ELITE INFIELDER and over 50 fielding drills!
antonellibaseball.mykajabi.co...
Click the link below to check out our hitting course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE HITTER and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseball.mykajabi.co...
Support our page by clicking the link below:
/ antonellibaseball
Antonelli Baseball is the #1 online resource for baseball instruction. If you would like to work with Matt Antonelli, or an Antonelli Baseball staff member, email him at [e-mail]
Follow Us Online!
Instagram: / antonellibaseball
Like Me on Facebook: / antonellibaseball
Check out our website: www.antonellibaseball.com

[@AntonelliBaseball]

Get our FREE hitting drill by clicking the link below! antonellibaseball.mykajabi.com/hittingdrill

[@mikes7446]

Thanks again Matt. I enjoy you’re content

[@mikes7446]

I know I have a Baseball card of you when you were on the Padres. I can remember seeing it in my mind. I gotta look for it with all my cards I collected back in those days. You’re fielding the Ball in the picture.

[@larrycopeland2413]

Have to be honest - when I first saw the replay, I was thinking, "what a ridiculous call." But having watched the replay more carefully, I have to say that I think the ump got the call right. Very good explanation in the video as well.

[@ryanvannice7878]

Thing is, if he would've used the runners lane to begin with, he would've had an extra 2 feet to avoid the tag and likely safe.

[@BrianEubanks]

I think the runner would have avoided the tag without leaving the basepath by sliding into first.

[@Rangersfan381]

Also the runner could have taken a better route to the bag. The play was on front of him. Move to the right much earlier

[@Adam_Guidry]

I don’t know how technical this rule is bc the placement the runners feet is 3 feet but the runner also contoured his body to be within the 3 feet to make the fielder miss the tag. In basketball a lot of people think you cross mid court once the basketball reaches but if your whole body doesn’t cross then you can stay in the backcourt.

[@franflanagan7300]

I think this is actually the right call. Definitely over 3 feet. Batter / runner’s initial choice of route to the base is terrible. If he gets into foul ground right away, he’s safe easily.

[@timisaac8121]

NIce vid. You really have a talent for teaching. Whether the call is correct or not, I know the rule and the concept base path. Thanks!!

[@mikefargo4339]

You are absolutely correct.... the batter/runner veered out of "his" base path to avoid the tag. The correct call and your explanation is spot on.

[@stich21]

incorrect but nice try

[@astros7242]

@@stich21you are the one who is wrong, move along little boy.

[@mattdeaver6850]

I'm a Brewers fan; it was a great call. It was a baserunning blunder. If he's in the running lane, he dodges that tag easily without leaving his 6ft wide lane.

[@dglmd]

To be clear the runner's lane has no bearing on this play. It is only an issue if the batter/runner interferes with a throw and fielder fielding a throw. It is only useful here to tell if the runner deviated more than 3 feet once the tag attempt was made. It was close, but I think the ump got it right. A runner establishes his own base path, but once a tag attempt is made, he can only deviate 3 feet from a line from where he is to the base he is going toward.

[@keith6706]

In this case, the lines marking the batter's lane are the reason why he was called out. If this had been between any other two bases, the call probably isn't made because it's a judgment and an umpire usually isn't in the correct position to be that precise. In this case, however, you have convenient marks _right there_ to tell that the runner has stepped more than three feet aside from his base path.

[@ohger1]

The call is right, but there are two points - the first is the runner screwed himself by running on the infield in an attempt to thwart a throw, and the second is they need to change this rule to the runner must be in the runners lane from 45' to the bag.

[@kenmylrea9587]

Matt. Great explanation ... as usual!

[@rdwells]

The problem is that this is the only place on the field where the umpire has a pair of lines exactly three feet apart to provide a reference point. He had to make the call; if he didn't the defensive manager would be out there pointing out that the runner's right foot started in fair territory as the tag attempt was made, and was on the runner's lane line later, which is more than 3 feet away. Personally, without the lines there, I would probably not have made that call. And frankly, I've probably never worked on a field where those lines were actually measured rather than eyeballed by some coach who had to chalk the field that day.

[@ymcairedellbball]

Good diagnosis of a correct call. And, yes, the runner's lane is 3-feet wide.

[@TK-mf5in]

The fact that he couldn’t even reach the base should bolster the argument that this is a correct call. But yeah, he definitely veered more than 3 ft from his path. Nice work

[@dustinlochner5573]

That’s the ruling I’ve also seen applied is he went out of the base path. Probably a notable moment for the runner to remember in the future to get outside the base line out of the box when dropping the bunt up the 1st base line instead of running up the grass. Likely easier said than done for a lefty batter.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

I think he intentionally ran in the grass thinking there might be a throw to 1st and he wanted to get in the way of it. Which is how it's taught. Then he realized there wouldnt be a throw and he was in danger of being tagged but by that point I think it was too late. Of course it's all speculation, I'll never know what he was thinking exactly

[@Scotty3170]

I agree with Larry Copland. I think he got it right. Where else on the field do you have "lane markers" to help make a decision. If can't do it here then you can't do it anywhere. Hope the PU is running up behind to see if the tag is placed on the backside. Unless of course he had a runner coming home.

[@oldfarmer9004]

So if he was running off to the right a little bit more before the tag attempt was made he would have been safe?

[@holmj12]

Correct

[@slpguy6026]

No because he’s a Brewer. No one cares. Call him out

[@joshuaanderson4090]

Yes because the straight line would have been further from the tag attempt and he probably wouldn't have needed to veer so sharply to avoid it. In this case he screwed himself but running far to the inside to try and interfere with a throw only, he was so far inside the pitcher realized he could tag him.

[@frankdelduca8595]

is the rule the foot going 3' out of the base line or is it the whole body. he foot was a few feet over but not his upper body.

[@holmj12]

*base path

[@holmj12]

The channel close call sports did a video on a "out of the base path" at home plate and talked about using the center of mass (or middle) of the runner.

[@holmj12]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mne0gISojZqCprssi=zCOEte9-TXScddZB

[@TylerLindsay18]

What is the 3 feet measured off of though? If you go off runners head, it doesn’t deviate more than 3 feet. But if you use the runners feet, that’s definitely >3 feet

[@GregMcNeish]

My understanding is that it is in fact the feet. So you can, for instance, be near the edge of the 3 foot path and bend at the waist to stick out your butt and avoid a belt-high tag, if you can keep your feet in bounds.

[@holmj12]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mne0gISojZqCprssi=zCOEte9-TXScddZB This video claims umpires should use center of mass (or middle)

[@slpguy6026]

He’s a Brewer so it’s measured off his highly inflated head due to their huge, completely unjustified egos

[@ThePdog3k]

They use shoulders, or center of mass.

[@GregMcNeish]

Oh interesting. I'm not a baseball guy, so I was going off what I've heard. I've seen multiple umpire videos on this exact play, and they all talked about the feet. Sounds like that's something that could use some clarification within the umpire community. I'm a soccer referee, and those sort of different interpretations are common issues in our community, too.

[@Rick_King]

From where the umpire was standing, he couldn't tell whether the fielder tagged the runner or not. The runner himself was blocking his view.

[@franflanagan7300]

Umpire can ask for help on that if he wants to. But he called him out for his path.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

That's sweeping motion the up does to his left is telling you, he isn't calling him out for the tag. He's calling him out for the deviation. He is not arguing the guy was tagged.

[@RossWard-ub6oz]

I agree

[@nickgoesvestmode]

Anyone know why the first baseman doesn't even try cover the bag and is just watching the play?

[@brandonw4633]

Interesting, if he did a slide and his body would be more than 3 feet out of the path (if a hook slide or slanted head first slide was done). So is it his feet or his body as a whole. His head is definitely not that far out of line (and his foot touched outside the line after the missed tag). The second view from behind did look kind of bad.

[@Kissypooh]

You can't compare left foot to right foot. You have to compare left foot to left foot or right foot to right foot, otherwise it's heads I win, tails you lose. The width of the runner is not a part of the 3 feet in the rule.

[@ingiford175]

His right foot was in the grass at the start of the tag attempt, and also the same foot was on the runner lane line when he deviated the most. Since the baseline and the runner lane is 3 feet, and the base Path, starts in the grass and to the left of the base line, he moved more then 3 feet off the established base path at the start of the tag attempt.

[@calvinhobbes6118]

@@ingiford175 Who cares about his feet, his upper body never deviated more than 3 feet from the line.

[@jaredwright1655]

Pretty sure it is

[@joshuaanderson4090]

What? His body is over the inside line at the tag Attempt and over the outside line at it's furthest point. And the line is 3' wide. It's a pretty clear cut case of the rule. No rule is ever going to be so fine as to say every atom Of his body has to be 36" shifted or he's safe. If you're not gonna call this just can the rule and let em do whatever they want. It's so obvious and it's completely within the spirit of the rule, as in he was gonna be out and veered off the line, he himself had chosen, in order to dodge the play.

[@edcortes5764]

I believe the tag attempt was made at 2:16. He's well within 3' at that point.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

Tag attempt is 2:03, maybe 2:04 if you want. The fielder is reaching out with his glove to tag. That's an attempt. An attempt that probably would have been successful if the runner had stayed in his established line to the bag (he barely dodged the attempt even with his juke so safe to say he'd have been tagged without it)

[@edcortes5764]

@@joshuaanderson4090 Yes, but as long as he's within 3' of his basepath, there's no jeopardy to be called out. He's well within that 3'.

[@admirals818]

It sounds like the location of his feet is the determining factor here. The funny thing is, I don't think his head/upper body deviated more than two feet.

[@slpguy6026]

Eh, he’s a Brewer. Call his ass out. Some of the biggest assholes in baseball, so no one cares outside of Milwaukee. Prima Donna prick Yelich! What a jerk

[@jayhawk6767]

The feet are part of the body, no?

[@admirals818]

@@jayhawk6767 Last time I checked. Just saying maybe the rule should focus on a more central part of the body than feet.

[@graysonshaw1621]

I think I would be pissed about that call too.

[@senna3]

Great analysis. IMO it was a borderline call and in those situations, umpires should rule more conservatively.

[@Durwood71]

Yes, but conservatively which way? Conservative in favor of the offense, or the defense?

[@senna3]

@@Durwood71 In favor of the offense in this case. When there is a 3 ft tolerance I would not call it unless it was 100% obvious it was way greater than 3ft.

[@BobbyMinn]

@@senna3 His action to evade the tag was drastic enough to miss the base. Come on man. He deserved to be out.

[@elindauer]

It doesn't make sense to me to measure the 3 feet by where the runner's pinky toes are. The mass of his body doesn't move more than two feet, I'd call him safe. If you use the location of the feet, all kinds of normally legal slides could be called out. Look up any Javier Baez video and see how many could be called illegal by this interpretation.

[@grithog5399]

You can’t measure how much he veered by looking at where his left foot was at the start and where his right foot was at the end. Did his body veer by 3 feet? Awful hard to argue for that.

[@bradbiesecker162]

If umpires are going to call that running out of the base path then I think there is a ton of inconsistency in the way that play is called. How many times has a runner veered even more out of the base path van in this play and still not been called out?

[@joshuaanderson4090]

Veering out only matters in a tag attempt. I don't see it happen that often and it's usually called.

[@bradbiesecker162]

@@joshuaanderson4090 I think there have been a number of occasions where base runners have avoided a tag by going out of the base path, and the umpire uses his own subjective reasoning to decide whether or not he will call her when her out. Search 'Josh Harrison avoids tags' in KZbin

[@johnnyallen843]

Correct call. The runner was more than 3 feet from his established base path that started on the grass at the time of the attempted tag.

[@cidmontenegro8225]

I think 3 feet of the base path is severely limiting. Especially if it is determined to be established by the centerline of the body. than means the distance to the center to the side of the body counts as part of the 3 feet, so the runner can only take a 2 foot step to try to avoid a tag? Absurd. If it is 3 feet from the side of the body, runner is not out of the base path.

[@scott1564]

The rule is DESIGNED to be limiting. What people don't understand about the 3 feet is it has nothing to do with the runner, rather, the approximate arm length of the player attempting the tag. If a defender has the ball, is around the base path with the runner and attempts to apply the tag, the runner shouldn't be able to run around the tag. THAT is the intent of the rule. There's nothing ridiculous about it. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[@aarond23]

These '3 feet' calls this year have been embarrassing

[@fifiwoof1969]

What part of the runner do you measure for? If it's feet then yeah he diverted from base path by more than 3 feet so he's out of the base path. If it's torso he's leaning foul when avoiding the tag an when he's running on runners lane line he leaning fair - THAT'S a big difference when it comes to how far he deviated from his base path - THAT to me is less than 3 feet, just saying.

[@Riokaii]

between left foot and right foot while runnin is already a solid 1.5 feet. By measuring it this way, the "width" of the base path is effectively 1.5 feet wide because you're "shortening it" by considering the 1.5 feet taken by his difference in stride already. In reality, we sohuld measure midpoint between the feet or the center of mass in the torso or something. By either metric measuring properly I think he's safe.

[@howardthompson3543]

Look at the step with the right foot at 2:59 .

[@GoatTheGoat]

The three foot base path width is designed with the runner's stride width in mind already. There is no need to make it even wider like you suggest.

[@TPinesGold]

Normal, athletic runners feet touch the ground much closer to a straight line. Your assertion of a 1½ foot separation is incorrect.

[@steveknowlton4632]

The tag attempt can't start from 6 feet away. I don't know what the right interpretive standard is. Perhaps it should be when the tag attempt becomes credible.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

At 2:03 of the video the runner is beginning his juke to the right. And he's clearly on the fair side of the line. So isn't that a credible attempt, if the runner himself believes he's gonna be out if he doesn't juke? And from there he moves most of his body to the outside of the line and can't even touch the base when he's done with the juke.

[@danielcastiglione5328]

I hate this call. Path path is 3 feet wide, but the rule does not say only part of the body has to be out. The whole body has to be out of the path. Otherwise runners would be out on almost every slide.

[@mattputnam3659]

I've always felt like the spirit of the base path rule is that you can't evade a tag by running around it. Under it, yes (or over it in some crazy cases), but we don't want the game to devolve into some ridiculous game of tag. So I feel like it's correct both by the letter of the law and the spirit of the game.

[@McLovin1759]

Looks like >3ft to me. In the moment, I’d have called him out. Given how subjective and difficult this call is, arguing this call isn’t something a rational person would do. To argue it to the point of being ejected is the stuff for the kind of person that thinks the loudest, most aggressive male in the room wins. And most often, they are on the losing end.

[@Rustedshut76]

“For the 2024 season, Major League Baseball modified Rule 5.09(a)(11) with respect to the width of the running lane. In addition to the three-foot-wide running lane chalked outside the foul line, the revised rule now also extends the width of the running lane from between 18 to 24 inches inside the foul line, expanding the running lane overall to 54 to 60 inches wide. The running lane in Major League Baseball beginning in 2024 will effectively extend from the grass line in fair territory to the chalked line in foul territory.” So if he’s on the grass and then veers to the chalk in foul territory, he has deviated between 4.5 and 5 feet.

[@davidthompson7817]

Which is too great. He’s out!

[@dglmd]

The running lane is irrelevant to this play. It only applies to a runner interfering with a throw. The only usefulness of the line here is to see if he deviated more than 3 feet from the line to the base once a tag attempt is made. He could run 15 feet outside the runner's lane if he wanted to. Once a tag attempt is made, he cannot deviate more than 3 feet from the line to the base.

[@Rustedshut76]

@@dglmd “the only usefulness…more than 3 feet” Precisely.

[@jrm2383]

He made one step out to avoid the tag, bad call

[@barbaraanneneale3674]

The rules in baseball are unbelievably complicated. I would not have been able to call this correctly. However, I have to agree with you. It was the right call.

[@genesispuredeaf2390]

For the people looking at chalk and trying to make an argument, you need to realize that isn’t a factor in establishing the base line. It is 100% umpire determination of where the BR is when a tag is attempted and if the evasion is more than the 3’ allowed. It isn’t a call that can be challenged. You can make a comment but if the umpire isn’t taking crap….you might get ejected.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

Tell us you didn't watch the video with out telling us you didn't watch the video. The chalk does matter here because it's, conveniently 3' wide. So it's an easy reference for 3'. You're technically correct that the lines don't matter for the base path, but you're just using a strawman so you can feel superior and "well aytktchually" people. Neither antonelli or anyone I've seen him this comment section has argued anything about the lines other than whether they constitute 3' or not.

[@genesispuredeaf2390]

@@joshuaanderson4090 you silly possum…..how you must have really wanted to use that phrase.

[@ticnatz]

MO.....bad call.

[@twtarmo1270]

I disagree. The majority of the runners body is still within that 3 foot margin. Runner is safe imo. And btw I despise the Brewers

[@MrGuzmanra]

So some rules apply on certain plays and not on others. That would never cause any confusion....

[@holmj12]

I don't believe your statement is true. Can you explain? Give an example?

[@MrGuzmanra]

@@holmj12 this video, did u see it?

[@teebob21]

​@@holmj12Here's an example: the runner's lane rule doesn't apply on plays that don't involve a throw to first base.

[@holmj12]

@MrGuzmanra I see what you're saying now. I must have misread it. However, I have to disagree. The runner's lane only applying when there is a throw to first is not confusing. Rules applying to certain plays is part of all rules books. In soccer you can't get a yellow card for what to do to a teammate but you could for doing the same to an opponent. But if you punch a teammate or even a spectator you can get a red card.

[@holmj12]

@MrGuzmanra a ball is picked up in the outfield in foul territory but the umpire calls it fair... How is it possible???? I'm soooo confused... (Except I'm not confused because it's not impossible to know the nauce of rules)

[@qualicumwilson5168]

Does this help? Of course it is only an interpretation of the rule:- "When is a runner out of the running lane? The batter-runner is out of the running lane when, during the last half of the distance to first base, one of the runner's feet (or both, for that matter) is entirely outside the running lane " When the pitcher started the tag, the runner was inside the base line. The "outside" of the running lane three feet measure would be the distance inside the base line PLUS the width of the baseline PLUS the distance the runner went to avoid the tag. The runners foot definitely touched the running box line which is about four feet away from the running line established at the beginning of the play. That is why the ref's get the big bucks. Of importance is that BOTH the runners FEET which must remain in the running lane. Learn something every day.

[@teebob21]

That's not the runner's lane rule. You cut off the most important part of the rule: when he is outside the lane, *he interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base."

[@qualicumwilson5168]

@@teebob21 My "quote" was from the interpretation handbook of MLB. Take it up with them , please. There was more but it but did not affect the meaning of the rule. The runners "lane" is as straight line from his position "established at the beginning of the play". At the time the runners was inside of the base line. All my calculations are based on that fact, which concludes what I did. Thank you but reread the rule and reread what I said. The ump was right.

[@teebob21]

@@qualicumwilson5168 Your copy/paste was the right words, yes, but the wrong rule. You are citing 5.09(a)(11). There was no throw on this play. There was no interference with a fielder taking the throw. This is not a Runner's Lane Interference call. The lane has absolutely zero to do with this call, besides serving as a literal yardstick to measure how far the runner deviated during the tag attempt. The call is correct, yes, but under a different rule: 5.09(b)(1). "A runner is out when: (1) 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." Before telling others to read the rulebook, please do so yourself.

[@abcba593]

Who came to watch the ejection, and is now disappointed,

[@imdeplorable2241]

I was taught that the base path was 6 feet wide --- 3 feet on either side of the foul line with the line itself in fair territory. The runner never went out of that 3-foot lane. His foot didn't touch the lane marking until AFTER the pitcher missed the tag. The runner was NOT out of the base path when the tag was attempted. In the opinion of this former umpire, that runner should NOT have been called out. That's the way I see it.

[@ScallopHolden]

The base path isn’t a defined place on the field. It’s where the runner is in relation to the bag. It could be way outside the lines depending on the play.

[@jimyeats]

What you were taught is simply incorrect in this scenario.

[@Niel2760]

Probably why umpires have so much trouble

[@bmack6386]

Perfect explaination. Out!

[@stich21]

bad explanation, SAFE

[@glenm99]

The rule feels imprecise, and the call against its spirit, in the following way. Look at 2:09. The runner's left foot is clearly far to the left of his centre of mass, and you know this because he is pushing off it to move outside. His hips are probably in foul territory at that point, because his next step, with the right foot, is on the line, and he pushes off the outside of that foot. It wouldn't be possible if his hips were in fair territory (try it). Then at 2:18, his right foot is far to the right of his hips, and you know that because he arrests that outward momentum. So which part of his body establishes the base path? A foot that is far away from the bulk of his body? That doesn't seem reasonable, because then you have two possible paths, one for each foot. If you interpret the line as going from e.g. his hips to the base, it's pretty clear that he stays within 3 feet of the base path. His hips definitely don't move 3 feet off line, and even his right foot at 2:18 is not 3 feet out. I'd draw the path from just in foul territory to the bag, where his left foot starts (at least) 12-18" to the fair side of the path, and his right foot later lands less than 3' to the foul side.

[@joshuaanderson4090]

I question your eyesight brother. At 2:09 left hip is definitely in fair territory and it's quite possible the right is too but hard to say from this angle. And by 2:18 his left hip, which was in fair territory is now over the far white line. His left hip moves from fair Territory to over the far edge of the running lane. And the lane is 3' wide. He's moved his left hip at least 3' away from the tag attempt.

[@Loglakeliving]

Out! Slam dunk call. He couldn’t even reach the bag.. Now the whole country should spend a few weeks glorifying this umpire…just like when they miss a call they are derided…nice work!

[@patrickhyde6125]

This is a bad call. The runner initially has the right to establish any base path he wants to get to the bag until he is put out. The running out of the base line infraction assumes that the fielder is in the runner's "chosen" base path already, chosen by the runner to get to the bag, and the runner then leaves the base path - as you say more than three feet - from the place of the attempted tag - not from where the fielder was outside of the runner's base path. If the fielder is not in the base runner's chosen base path attempting to make the tag, the runner still has the absolute right to avoid the tag and reestablish his base path - he is not out yet. He is still a base runner with all of the rights of a base runner. The runner is not three feet out side of the base path the fielder attempts to tag him with the ball. In fact, the runner is literally "inches" away from the tag at the time he avoids the tag. After he avoids the tag, he can go as far as he wants away from his initial base path because he is no longer attempting to avoid the tag. He has already avoided the tag. And he can reestablish any path to the base he wants. He is no longer trying to avoid the tag. The fielder was not able to tag him out with his best effort. The reason that the lane violation does not apply - and the runner is not out AUTOMATICALLY for "running outside of the designated area -(and you are right that is not the umpires call here) is because to be called out for running out of the designated area the rule states that the runner must run out of the designated area (now extended to the dirt area to the infield grass, as you stated) is because as the rule states, the runner has to be running outside of the designated area AND IN DOING SO HE INTERFERES WITH THE FIELDERS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE PLAY, which means attempting to play baseball the way it is intended to be played. MLB INTERFERENCE has two rules INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL. A runner INTERFERES with a fielder fielding a ball if he prevents the fielder from fielding a ball - including the fielder's vision - (and the rule here only applies to fielding a ball - not fielding a thrown ball in a double play attempt). And this interference with fielding the batted ball includes intentional and unintentional interference - not intentionally running out of the baseline, but intentionally doing so to prevent the fielder from fielding the ball. The second means of INTERFERNENCE is to interfere with the covering fielder's ability to receive a thrown ball from the fielder attempting to throw the ball to the receiver covering the bag. This INTERFERENCE must be INTENTIONAL. This means that the runner must not only intentionally running out of the designated area, but he must be intentionally running out of the designated area FOR THE PURPOSE OF (IN DOING SO) preventing the covering fielder from being able to catch the ball. The only way that can be done is if the fielder throwing the ball looks up to throw the ball to the covering fielder and throwing fielder can't see the covering fielder to throw the ball to him. The home plate umpire - whose call this is - is in a perfect position to see, if the covering fielder is properly out of the base path and properly covering the bag, and If the fielding fielder can see the covering fielder. The throwing fielder is expected to play baseball and throw the ball accurately to the covering fielder to put the batter-runner out. It doesn't matter whether the runner's chosen base path is outside of the designated area or not - if it doesn't prevent the fielders from playing baseball in the way it was intended to be played. The lane violation is not a "get out of jail" card for a bad throw to the player covering first base. The runner's chosen base path - the fastest way to first base - is his right UNLESS IN DOING SO HE INTERFERES WITH THE FIELDER'S ABILITY TO PLAY THE GAME AND MAKE THE PUT OUT regardless of where the running lane is.

[@patrickhyde6125]

See frame 114 125. That is the only time a tag was attempted, and the runner was still in the infield at the time the tag was attempted. After that the "running out of the baseline rule" does not apply. That was the runner's momentum.

[@coolgarrett17]

get a life bro

[@jcollier71]

You said a bunch of incorrect words. Yeesh. The video was shorter than your diatribe and the video was right. You should have saved yourself some time and just learned something instead.

[@patrickhyde6125]

@@coolgarrett17 I guess you don't have a constructive comment.

[@patrickhyde6125]

@@jcollier71 that's why I use the rules to back up my conclusion. I don't know which words you state are incorrect. Are they the words in the rules? Has Dave Martinez if he thinks this rule needs to be straightened out and interpreted correctly

[@robprator5890]

I guess it depends on how you would define “tag attempt” because the fielder did not outstretch his arm until the runner already made a step between the two white lines. In that case he only veered a few inches. Rules are dumb when they are not clearly defined. But over defining will ruin the sport.

[@johnleonard5857]

Excellent explanation of what really happened. Those announcers always make it worse.

[@michaelmcguire9749]

Poor Call

[@ML-jx9bl]

I think the runner is out. He started running from the batters box on the grass, and when the pitcher tried to tag him, he veered off and stepped with his right foot on the outer edge of the outer base line.

[@timmyscholl4100]

Is he supposed to just let the pitcher tag him for free? It's a genuine question after your comment. And his right foot wasn't out of the line.

[@mikes7446]

he barely even ran out trying to avoid the tag.

[@ingiford175]

@@mikes7446 the 'barely" was more then 4 feet deviation from the initial base path, which you are given 3 feet leeway each way.

[@4thegloryofthelord]

I don’t understand what the difference between the runners line and base path is. Also, if his foot hit the line, doesn’t/shouldn’t that keep him still IN? A baseball is still IN when it hits the line. And even if he stepped out, his body was still inside the lines.

[@douellette7960]

I think he's saying the base path is an imaginary line from runner to base. So is different for every situation

[@PerryClitheroe]

They are two different rules for two different purposes. Base Path: A Direct line from the runner to the base, at the time that the defense attempts to tag the runner anywhere on the field. A runner May not deviate their path more than 3 feet to avoid the tag. Runner’s Lane: This rule mostly exists to govern the reality that on short ground balls in front of the mound, there isn’t much of an angle to throw to 1B without hitting the runner. On these plays, the runner must be in their lane and can be called out for interference if they affect the first baseman’s ability to catch the throw while outside of the lane.

[@ingiford175]

A base path is 'created' the moment a tag attempt is started. It is a line from where the runner is to the base he needs to go to. During a tag attempt a runner is only allowed 3 ft each direction to 'dodge'. If there is no tag attempt, a runner could go to right field run around a fielder if he wanted....

[@teebob21]

The runner's lane line isn't pertinent to this ruling EXCEPT that it is known to be 3 feet from the foul line. It's a useful yardstick for making this call. The runner was inside fair territory when the tag attempt began. The runner ran all the way to the runner's lane line to avoid the tag. Therefore, the runner ran more than 3 feet from his basepath to avoid the tag. He is out, and the ball remains live.

[@GMax17]

Bad call

[@imola23]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2PYdmCanbd3pas

[@unclejer65]

This is the correct call. Close, but correct. When you are in training the general rule is if the player takes a step and a reach that is about three feet. As you can see the player did take a step and a reach. Plus the runner went from the grass ton the line. In my opinion it is not a reason to get ejected. Ask the umpires to get together give them a chance to talk about it and leave it at that. In real time with no slow motion to help this is an amazing call by the first base umpire.

[@slpguy6026]

You are definitely correct, objectively. You are also correct subjectively, because literally no one outside of Milwaukee likes the freaking Brewers. So, he’s out.

[@stich21]

Brewers are gonna win the world series and you will cry. It will be fun

[@cosmostrek2001]

the ump needs to be taken to a lunatic asylum. when the runner passes the pitcher he is less than 3 feet from him.after he passes his foot hits the white line it could be more than 3 feet, but his 95 percent of his body is with 3 feet of the pitcher. straight jacket for the ump.

[@imola23]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2PYdmCanbd3pas

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

What about the play we see occasionally where a runner will leap over the catcher to score? Shouldn’t they be called out for veering 3 feet out of the basepath vertically? The rule book doesn’t specify which direction the 3 feet deviation has to be.

[@ThePurpleTape1]

We should just have 2 lines and make an official running lane

[@GoatTheGoat]

Did you watch the video? It wasn't a running lane call.

[@bobashby3106]

Agree that it is arguably a correct call technically. But is it a call that should be made? Or is it more like a touch foul in basketball that is better off not being made? Game management and preventive officiating may be better advised than a technically defensible call that can adversely affect a game.

[@00kt86]

Lol. Guess you have to draw the line somewhere or you'd have keystone cops plays.

[@BruceLinderDPT]

You are comparing his left foot to his right foot. If you compare left foot to left foot or right foot to right foot it is @3 feet exactly. The ump injected himself into a play that did not need him there.

[@GTR3x]

The runner can theoretically veer three feet in either direction. So that’s a 6-ft wide path from him to the base. Take a giant Sharpie and draw a 6-ft wide marker line from the runner to the base. EVERY part of the runner’s body has to vacate that stripe. As long as any part of his body remains within that stripe, he is OK. This runner’s head never left that full width of that path. He should’ve been SAFE. Bad call!

[@imola23]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2PYdmCanbd3pas

[@teebob21]

That is not consistent with the actual interpretation. Yes, he gets 6 feet total, 3 in either direction. The part of the body used to judge this is the torso, and if the runner remains upright, we can use the feet as an proxy (since the torso will remain above the feet). This runner deviated more than 3 feet on a tag attempt, plain as day. It's an out, and a correct call.

[@GTR3x]

@@teebob21 No. If the runner were to somehow lay out flat perpendicular to his forward direction to the base while executing some crazy slide move, his head would be directly at the base path and his feet would be 6ish feet to the side of that centerline (roughly his height). That should still be interpreted as remaining in the base path. A taggable part of his body is within 3 feet of the established base path.

[@teebob21]

@@GTR3x You seem to have confused your "should be" definition, what what actually is the interpretation of the rule. There is nothing that makes a "taggable part" enough to remain in the basepath.

[@GTR3x]

@@teebob21 The runner is not more than three feet out of the base path unless ALL of him is more than three feet from the base path. THAT is the correct interpretation.

[@stevethompson8154]

Correct call imo

[@peteshallcross787]

I love when guys bunt and it's a shame our guy ran on the grass cuz if he hadn't there's no way he's out. I'm also enjoying Counsell coaching a last place team! We'll take him back for pennies on the dollar but he has to start where he did in the Brewers Org decades ago...batboy!

[@mikes7446]

That’s BS

[@wileuler5461]

No it’s not the right call!

[@bruceboman9801]

Yes. 3 ft. Remember back in the days of playing tag? I think in baseball, runners shouldn't be penalized for swerving their hips or a bit of avoiding being tagged. The rules make you run thru like a tank vs a rabbit. Hell, these are athletes, let them show their athleticism. It's sports, but it"s also entertainment. But let's not make it Savanah Banana Ball. Which I like BTW. I think, under the technical rules in the book, O'Nora got it right.

[@mikes7446]

Blues are going to cost themselves jobs if they keep the crappy play calling up. Even when they go to review booth they still get it wrong. Lol

[@samueldrazkowski2908]

Avoiding a tag between home and first should be a seperate rule and the runner should be granted the whole runner's lane allowing the ballerina avoidance moves and the lean arounds, his right foot was on line so safe, they let Baez get in a rundown between home and first

[@ingiford175]

Yes, but what if the runner was not even in the runner's lane at the start of the tag attempt? Runners lane only applies during a thrown ball.

[@Revelation22v13]

The call was right

[@rogerweigel7925]

The umpire made the correct call.

[@franflanagan7300]

I think this is actually the right call. Definitely over 3 feet. Batter / runner’s initial choice of route to the base is terrible. If he gets into foul ground right away, he’s safe easily.

[@ingiford175]

Yep, if he was running on the base line initially and dodged out to the right runner lane line, that would have been exactly 3 feet