Lindor's Runner's Lane Interference - Was Umpire Erich Bacchus' Out Call Correct for OBR? NCAA, NFHS

Mets batter-runner Francisco Lindor earned his 4th strikeout on runner's lane interference when HP Umpire Erich Bacchus called him for running on the infield grass and interfering with St Louis' play. Manager Carlos Mendoza argued to no avail, but did he have a point? Article: www.closecalls...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Runner's Lane Interference (Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11)) states that a batter is out for running the last half to first base not within the three-foot wide running lane (or the new-for-2024 dirt portion between the foul line and infield grass lip), and in doing so, interfering with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Our analysis illustrates a key point of OBR/professional baseball's RLI rule by citing equivalent rules at other levels.
In college, NCAA Rule 7-11-p has a note that states a BR can be called out for "alter[ing] the throw of a fielder" in addition to the fielder taking the throw, while NFHS 8-4-1g simply puts the batter-runner out for running outside the lane, regardless of what happens next.
The primary difference then is that OBR considers only whether the illegally positioned batter-runner has interfered with the fielder receiving or taking the throw at first base while NCAA allows for RLI if the interference is with the fielder making the throw (by forcing them to alter their throw).
Accordingly, this play is RLI in NFHS and NCAA, but only can be called in OBR if the umpire deems the receiver (Cardinals 1B Paul Goldschmidt) is interfered with by the batter-runner. The confounding variable here pertains to catcher Willson Contreras' throw, which was high and eluded Goldy even after he jumped in an attempt to catch the ball.
If the throw could not have reasonably retired the runner, in pro, then the play should not be called runner's lane interference. If it could have reasonably retired the runner, then it is RLI.

[@ronpeacock9939]

I like the fact that you went over the NCAA and NFHS part... too many accuse us of not knowing the rules when they differ... Here, Lindor I'll give you less love because you were hitting LH meaning you had to veer ALOT to get to that spot... RH hitter.. it's probably on the direct line.. LH.. the Line IS the direct line... Still, I know I would not have called it in OBR rule spec's because it was uncatchable and he didn't interfere with that... in HS... easy call...(and Yeah, when I was younger and played catcher.. I loved drilling the runner on these)...

[@BIGHEADjr51]

Drilling the runner and allowing the umpires judgement call? HS baseball is fun huh lol

[@collinthebenevolentbandit]

Your videos are totally awesome. You have a wonderful way of covering all angles of the rules and explaining the entire situation in a way that is both thorough and easy to understand. Amazing work!

[@ericvanvlandren8987]

Excellent breakdown, excellent explanation. Just kinda frustrating because CLEARLY Lindor was trying to disrupt the throw/catch and the only reason he is not guilty of that is that the throw was high. The interpretation makes complete sense it just rankles a little.

[@neohippie7319]

Yeah, and I think Lindsey's probably right... But in the umpire' defense, there might be an argument that the runner's position obstructed 1B's line of sight to see the throw and time his jump. It's a hard argument, but still justifiable to make the out call.

[@BIGHEADjr51]

The quality of the throw means nothing to the judgment call by the umpire.

[@78tag]

@@neohippie7319 I agree - an umpire ruling by the meaning of interference - not the ignorance on the league's part to correct this form of cheating. If they are going to allow a player to use his body to interfere with a play then don't let them wear helmets or pads. Players continually do that in the batters box by leaning into pitches and don't get called on it - no elbow protection and see if they are so inclined to purposely get hit by a pitch or no helmet while purposely running in the line of a throw. Face high relays from second to first in double plays taught runners to get out of the way a long time ago. I'm surprised that runners at first aren't wearing face masks in order to break up double plays - they are now wearing hand protectors - what's the difference.

[@78tag]

@@BIGHEADjr51 - you don't think it should if the line of the throw to first base was affected by the runner's path outside the defined base path ?? Lindor knew he was interfering with the throw and he knew he was out of the "base path" or he wouldn't have reacted that way.

[@PeterWhite-q1k]

Great channel in my opinion. I appreciate you doing the work you do. Now f you can get through to game announcers at *all* levels of baseball to learn what a foul tip is in actuality I can stop yelling at my television! :^)

[@StevenBLevy]

I think you're right, but the call is closer than you describe. The first baseman is clearly leery of being hit by the batter-runner when he lands, which causes him to shy away (slightly) from a full-extension leap. I think in the absence of the batter-runner he could catch the ball, but he'd be well off the bag and would have no chance to touch it ahead of the runner (or apply a tag). By the letter of the rule, he perhaps interferes with the fielder taking the throw, albeit indirectly, but there is no reasonable chance to retire the runner.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

well said

[@randominternet5586]

I'm with you on this. His glove makes contact with the ball even. This type of garbage also leads to catchers starting to throw hard right at runners to prove the issue. Why NOT just say if you leave runners lane you are out? Seems simpler to me then all this dancing around.

[@78tag]

@@randominternet5586 Exactly - what is the point of specifically defining the "runners lane" to first base if it doesn't mean anything ? MLB at its finest - they've had how many years (decades) to get this right ?? This reminds me too much of the idiotic rules of golf (a game that is supposedly based on the integrity of the player's) There needs to be a point system based on the number of times you cheat (or even attempt to cheat). 3 STRIKE YOU'RE OUT ! I despise people who cheat in competition. It's the one place that you can be the best because you ARE the best or you aren't - no cheating to compensate for your short comings.

[@matthewreynolds1898]

@closecallsports while I normally don't have issues with your explanations, your NFHS rule interpretation is a little off. At 3:29 and 3:35 you say that in high school, a runner is out for just being out of the lane. I direct you to 8-4-1g(1) "This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw." You still have to judge interference in high school to call the RLI.

[@78tag]

Your interpretation is flawed - Lindor did interfere with "something" - it may not be written that way but for you to say he didn't interfere is ludicrous - he made the catcher alter his throw - is that not interference ?? If not then lets go back to the free-for-all days of Ty Cobb and let the runners injure the defense to gain an advantage as well and rename it LIBERALBALL.... and allow the old "bean" ball, cleats high slides, full blast collisions at home plate. While you're at it, allow kicking a ball in play, throwing you're bat at a player fielding a ground ball, running through a player fielding a pop-up.... the list could go on and on.

[@ryanmarchione]

But did Lindor running outside of the runners lane cause the high throw. I think this is a good call

[@EvanPederson]

Most of the video was dedicated to the reason that doesn't matter here.

[@dodiad]

I’ve got no call here, even under the NCAA code. The catcher is throwing from a wide position to the 3B side, where he fielded the muffed third strike. BR, even running on the grass to the left of the baseline, is not in the line of the throw. F2 does not have to alter his throw to avoid the runner. A good throw might have gotten him, but the BR’s presence on the infield grass did not alter the throw.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

not in the line of the throw? lol get those cataracts removed grandpa

[@dodiad]

​@@chocolatecoveredgummybears F2 is not throwing from behind the runner, he’s way over up the 3B line. The throw comes in from way off to BR’s left. A good throw (not high over F3’s head) would not have hit the runner, so there is no need to alter the throw to avoid him. Get those glasses checked, sonny.

[@sour7654]

What about little league rules I like how you got all the rules

[@danielcastiglione5328]

I like the new rule, but there needs to be a standard of 18” on dirt between the grass and foul line. Wriggly has maybe 2”. As a catcher when someone was running inside, I just threw it right in the runners back.

[@Renegade605]

I suspect we will see this in the future. As much as I love how baseball is one of the few sports where parts of the park can be very different from one venue to the next, this is not a situation where differences should be allowed.

[@critter2]

no i don't it just favors teams

[@DAK4Blizzard]

All stadiums are supposed to make it 18-24 inches, tho MLB is allowing for an unspecified grace period. I assumed by May or June.

[@danielcastiglione5328]

@@DAK4Blizzard I will tell my wife that Wriggly is 18”, and she will be impressed! Hahaha

[@bruceboman9801]

Clearly on the grass. I like Lindor, but he's showing his crappy at bats with immature frustration. Nothing new in sports. Really glad you acknowledged the college and HS differences in the rules.

[@bloodwrage]

He clearly interfered. This is cope. The first baseman jumped and hand to land awkwardly to avoid Lindor.

[@donsheffler]

I agree 100%. The new rule extends the lane inside the baseline, and if the runner is in the lane he can not be called for interference. If outside the lane he MAY be called for interference IF he actually interferes. This rule is absolutely ONLY about interfering with the 1st baseman’s ability to catch the ball, and has literally nothing to do with causing a bad throw from the catcher. If the catcher throws the ball away, or even hits the runner in the back, it is on the catcher and is not interference. How on earth does an MLB umpire - on a new rule which they ALL had to review and study - get this so wrong??!!

[@francissager3133]

I agree except, I believe a throw hitting the illegally positioned batter-runner in the back could be construed as hindering the fielder's ability to field the throw at first base.

[@donsheffler]

@@francissager3133 If the runner and the ball are arriving at first base simultaneously, yes, you're right. But if the ball hits the runner a few steps before getting to the bag (and the first baseman), it's just a bad throw.

[@teebob21]

1000% agree. The batter runner was running somewhere that he did not have protection from RLI, but the throw was not a quality throw, and this should not have been called an out for RLI.

[@chesterthompson6835]

By running illegally, he made the throw to non quality, so why should he get away with not running legally

[@teebob21]

@@chesterthompson6835 Your assumption is faulty and bad logic. The location of the runner is irrelevant. The onus is on the fielder to make a quality throw.

[@chesterthompson6835]

@@teebob21 how is the runner running illegally irrelevant?

[@teebob21]

@@chesterthompson6835 Because the rules don't care where the runner is for the purposes of the throw. The runners lane rule states that a runner may not interfere with the fielder *taking* the throw at 1B, unless he is in the lane or exiting it on his last stride. Additionally, OBR (pro rules) generally also put the additional responsibility of making a quality throw on the defense, e.g, a batter-runner is not out for interference when the throw was shit to begin with.

[@chesterthompson6835]

@teebob21 well it's a poorly written rule because you can't tell me that if he was running legally that a professional catcher can't make that throw all day. So why should a player breaking the rules get rewarded for breaking the rule?

[@FUGP72]

I think the umpire thought Lindor was 9 1/2 feet tall. And jumped. Off a trampoline.

[@zachansen8293]

mlb rule is dumb. The default should be the runner is out if it's anything near them being in the wrong place helped them not be out. You don't want to have the person throwing the ball having to try to decide if you can hit the runner in the back or not while trying to throw it... what if they weren't on the grass but just barely... now you hit them and you get an error. The rule should make it so this runner is out. Beyond that, let's add a fine to running outside the base path. If all you do is make the runner out for doing it when they would have been out anyhow, then they'll keep doing it because why not?

[@teebob21]

Wow. Just....wow. What a interesting take from someone..Wow.

[@zachansen8293]

@@teebob21 did you have something to contribute or just wanted to see if your keyboard still worked?

[@LivingLifeAlive3994]

Nope. Right call. Thanks.

[@fifiwoof1969]

Catcher needs to drill batter/runner here.

[@IOSALive]

CloseCallSports, Your videos always make me happy, so I subscribed!

[@tw9535]

Catcher should have thrown at the runner's back, to be honest. The guy was 5 feet out in the grass.

[@sfan2767]

Which is why the OBR rule is stupid. Incentivizing that action is stupid.

[@TroyVan6654]

Throw at the runner's back! You have to know this.

[@duelist301]

The issue is then you create a fight and mlb will suspend the catcher for it. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

[@jaydee4177]

​@@duelist301what? No, that's never happened to my knowledge - it's not the same as an intentional HBP from a pitcher. Why would getting hit by the throw in this situation cause a fight?

[@CloseCallSports]

@@jaydee4177 Joe West ejected Rob Dibble in 1991 for throwing a bunted ball at the batter-runner in Chicago.

[@jaydee4177]

@@CloseCallSports that's interesting, you learn something new every day! Still, one exceptional example from 1991 doesn't prove the rule - runners get hit by throws all the time and (as far as I know) almost never get ejected or, as the OP suggested, start fights. That might've just been a Joe West special haha, or maybe there were extenuating circumstances to that particular ejection.

[@rickhaavisto9023]

@@jaydee4177In that case, the pitcher threw the ball with some mean-spirited energy and really wasn’t trying to make a play, and was intending to injure

[@ACracing24]

Great breakdown

[@pacificcoasttrains3785]

MLB needs to change this, else catchers will learn to drill runners in the back. Not what anyone wants in the game.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

lol catchers been taught that for probably 50 years now

[@hdog0572]

Catchers are told to throw at the runner in these situations if they do not have a clear throw to 1B

[@schlootle]

Idk, Lindor very obviously goes out of his way to veer towards the left while running. It was intentional to throw off the 1B, hell I would argue he even lost some milliseconds from reaching the bag because of his change of course. I've seen some Astros players get dogged on for the same exact situation, I am sure Lindor already knew he was playing with fire for doing that but was going to argue regardless.

[@scottcostello1786]

Again, look at the rule. That throw is not catchable so where he’s running is irrelevant. This is cut and dry in MLB.

[@BluesImprov]

WHY have a lane if you're not going to enforce it? He was clearly on the grass. . .He was OUT. I don't care about the throw because you CANNOT and shouldn't have to determine whether his position affected the throw or not. If you're running on the grass YOU'RE OUT. Lindor is a jerk and knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to make the throw difficult. Don't reward him for such an obvious play. . .CALL HIM OUT. What are you a Mets fan? And again, WHY have a lane at all then? So, just let the runner go wherever he wants to try to make the throw difficult? So stupid. . .So easy. . .Just tell these guys that if you run on the infield grass you're OUT. . .Very simple. STOP with all the complicated possibilities. No judgement call needed. On the infield grass? You're OUT. Too simple for some of these jerks I guess. And I couldn't care less about the NCAA or high school. These are well-paid pros. College and high school? Who cares?

[@patrickhyde6125]

I agree with you that the umpires got this wrong. I disagree with your analysis of the rules you quoted, First you did not quote the rules what constitutes interference. And you did not quote the rule regarding offensive interference - which in art does not apply because the runner here is not recently retired and does the act of interference, nor has he recently scored and then knowingly done an interfering act after scoring. But both rules apply by implication. In order to do something, here to interfere you have to know that you are interfering, and you have to do so intentionally, and by rule willfully and deliberately. Also knowing that you are running outside of the designated lines does not mean that you know that you are "interfering" which normally means that you must know and perform the act of intentionally interfere. A fielded ball does not protect a fielder who has just made an error and the runner does not know where the ball is whether or not there was an error. In order for the batter-runner here to interfere he has to know that he is interfering. It is not enough that the runner knows that he is running outside of the designated running lane. Also, you do not define a fielded ball, which implies a batted fair ball, not a ball muffed by the catcher creating an eligibility for the batter runner to run to first base. The count is know shown, but apparently this is a muffed and dropped third strike by the catcher. When i first saw it I thought it was a foul ball and I didn't know why the batter-runner was running. Then it dawned on me. There is no way after the first instance that the batter-runner knew where the catcher was when he "fielded" the muffed ball, for the batter-runner to know that his running out of the designated area would be a violation. And if fact it wasn't. There was plenty of room for the catcher to make a good throw that would have retired the runner. The catcher was not confused because the runner was running out of the designated lane. The throw wasn't too high for the first baseman to catch because the catcher was confused or because he didn't have an open throwing lane to the first baseman. The first baseman didn't catch the ball because the throw was a wild throw and would not have put the runner out anyway. Had the throw been on to the first baseman, it was on time and the runner would have been called out. A major league catcher could have and should have made that throw. That is the ONLY REASON the runner was not put out. Not because the runner was running on the grass. The only way that the batter-runner is required to run in this designated area is when the batter-runner sees the batted or in this case butted ball in front of him knows that if he doesn't stay in the designated path, he will be intentionally interfering with the fielder's ability to field the BATTED BALL and throw the ball to the fielder covering first base- here the first baseman. The batter-runner must know not only that he is running in the designated area, but he must also know that by doing so he is knowingly, intentionally, willfully and deliberately doing so because he knows that he is interfering with the fielder's ability to make the play. So as a practical matter the ONLY TIME this rule and these rules apply is when the batter bunts or hits the ball down the first based line and hugging the line in fair territory, and as the batter-runner sees that he has to get out of the way of the fielder trying to field the ball (which is normal offensive interference - not under this rule) and as the rule clearly dictates the batter-runner also interferes with the fielder's ability to throw the ball to the fielder covering first base. If there are two players attempting to filed the batted or bunted fair ball down the first base line, the umpire can only protect the fielder that the umpire in his discretion believes had the best chance to field the ball as the play progresses. Therefore, in order for this rule to apply the runner has to see the ball hit or bunted down the first base line essentially hugging the line and the runner must knowingly, (he sees it) and intentionally (interferes with the fielding under the general offensive interference rule) and intentionally interferes with the thrown ball (under this rule) to first base. This rule was not instituted to give the thrower the right to make a bad throw and get a free pass to playing baseball the way it was intended to be played. Put the runner out by making a good throw to the fielder first base. This rule does not give the fielder the right to the runner in the back or head JUST BECAUSE HE IS RUNNING OUT OF THE ZONE. In spite of your references to the college and high school rules, the analysis is the same. The batter-runner is only out if in the opinion of the umpire, the batter is ACTUALLY interfering with the fielder's attempt to field the ball (by running into him or threatening to run into him) or intentionally interfering with the ability of the fielder to throw the ball to the fielder covering first base (by virtually running in front of the fielder receiving the throw so that the thrower (DOES NOT HAVE A THROWING LANE) AND THER\EFORE cannot make a good throw to first base. This rule is not an invitation for the thrower to make a bad throw and still get the batter-runner out. This includes when the thrower has just muffed a third strike, and in this case where the muff on the third strike did not constitute an error. There is o reason why the major league catcher could not have made an accurate throw here REGARDLESS of whether the runner was INTENTIONALLY running on the infield grass or not. This catcher was not confused. The confusion langue was put in in the event that the batter-runner runs past the fielding player and then the batter-runner moves onto the infield grass to intentionally confuse the fielder momentarily so that the fielder would have to move into foul territory after fielding the ball in order to make the throw to first base. Bottom line, if the fielders can make the play make them make the play regardless of whether the batter-runner is running in the designated area, which if so the umpires ignore the rule and make the fielders make the play.

[@chuckfan1]

In this play, the throw is "bad" because the catcher is trying to throw OVER the BR, who is where he is not supposed to be Stop making excuses on this play Lindor is purposely running there, TRYING to Interfere. Call it... Going to reward the offense for blatantly trying to interfere? Yes, there is judgement on this in the pros, but that runner when the throw is made, is right in the middle point of the throw Catcher is winging it, trying to throw over the runner, which causes the throw to be high... Sack up people and make the call Defense does all they are supposed to, and your going to ding the defense for trying to make a play over/around a BR who is not supposed to be there?? This play ain't that hard to officiate

[@alexandrelambert4923]

If anyone cares: this ISN’T runners lane interference for Baseball Canada. Or at least to how I’m understanding my rule book.

[@robertbrown7470]

The runner is not automatically out in High School. Read subsection 1 of the rule. Pretty clear. Unless we are supposed to ignore that part of the rule? 8-4-1 g 1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball /or/ if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. If the act of running outside the runner's lane does not interfere with a fielder or a throw, it is not interference. Pretty darned clear. An umpire in a high school game could call the runner out if in his or her judgement the act of running outside the lane interfered with the fielder or a throw. Or not call the runner out as the case may be. It's umpire judgement - it is not automatic. The high school umpire must rule that the runner interfered with the throw in this case. Example: Catcher throws the ball into the stands over the first base dugout into the fourth level of the ball park, no where near the fielder at first base. It's up to the umpire to rule whether it was just a horrible throw or if the fielder interfered with the throw. It is not automatic. Use your judgement in high school. Unless you have a rule that says it is automatically interference. Or a case book situation that says the same. I can't find either one. So I'm enforcing the rule as it is written. So, sorry it is not automatic. It's up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether there was interference or not. In High School.

[@billyskittles1036]

Lindor would claim he were safe if he ran to third and then over the pitcher’s mound to first. Stay in your lane and stop whining. You’ve got to set a path somewhere. You can’t just let people run wherever they want just because it doesn’t directly interfere with the throw. I would have called him out, too.

[@EvanPederson]

Like the rule or not, it astounds me that it seems no one can keep it straight even after an explanation. The only argument here should be whether or not it's reasonable to say that Lindor caused Goldschmidt to miss the catch. (Or, perhaps, whether it's a good rule or not....)

[@Phil007QOS]

How hard is it to know what your running on?? They made it pretty simple and they still can’t stay in the runners lane. Grass illegal, dirt safe. Its pretty simple.

[@garygemmell3488]

My question is where was the interference? The rule requires the runner to be outside of the land AND interfering with the fielder taking the throw. If the catcher threw high to get an interference call, he needs to be sent down to the minors. Plur the BR in the back and you'll get no argument from anyone withe a brain.

[@TheKilrmy]

Unreal that umpires don’t understand the rule and commentators, some of which are former players, also don’t comprehend the rule.

[@78tag]

I can't believe this rule hasn't been quantified after all these years - it leads you to believe they want this controversy to remain in the game.

[@BIOHAZARDRUSGaming]

Kind of would’ve also made it to the bag faster had he not had such a far out extension to his running path

[@BIGHEADjr51]

This is a judgement call for the umpire- pretty much everyone here is wrong

[@adamwatkins1150]

He had to have interfered with F3's catch, not F2's throw, for this to be interference under the OBR.

[@rickysampson8759]

Next time bean him. He wouldn’t get first base if he’s knocked out

[@TheFreshmanWIT]

Note I believe the interpretation you have of NFHS 8-4-1(g) misses subsection 1: "This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw." Notice the 'or if the act does not interfere with the fielder or throw'. This makes the NFHS rule very similar to the NCAA rule.

[@CloseCallSports]

Note the exception listed at 3:27

[@TheFreshmanWIT]

@@CloseCallSports You only list the exception to leave, which I don't have any problem with. Only that you state that interference isn't a requirement for NFHS, when it very much is.

[@CloseCallSports]

@@TheFreshmanWIT The rule is called Runner's Lane 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 though?

[@TheFreshmanWIT]

@@CloseCallSports Of course, which is why the way you stated it was confusing at a minimum. @ 3:27: "High school is somewhat similar in that you are are just plain old out if you are not within the runners lane.". In high school the runner is out simply for not being within the lane, in college you can call the runner out if you feel his illegal position caused the bad throw." @ 4:31 with the onscreen graphic (referring to NFHS): "'batter-runner running outside... period, full stop, no "INT w throw"" Based on the subsection 1, "interfere with a... throw" (or fielder) is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

[@ianspatz8234]

Great video but you should fix this point. If a runner would always be called out for running outside the lane without interfering with either the throw or catch, we'd have a lot more outs and short games. Alas.

[@deputyduffy]

I would have called him out too.... Good call Umps.

[@chuckinhouston9952]

Great explanation Lindsey!

[@franchello1105]

This is why you throw it right at the runner's back.

[@teebob21]

Or make any other type of quality throw, which this was not.

[@BIGHEADjr51]

No this is why u clear yourself on either side of baseline and make a good throw. Baseball isn’t difficult

[@RandalC-hy5ke]

Where’s the video with your girl Jen?

[@rangergun]

That’s why they need to hit the batter in the back

[@StrivingTowardsWhatIsAhead]

5 K’s Frankie? Hahahahahaha

[@U9Daddy]

Little League is the same as OBR

[@totallykoolyeah]

Was he running to second😊

[@bigpoppa1234]

This rule is never going to stop being a problem until they introduce a "you have to be in the lane the entire way" rule.

[@teebob21]

It's only a problem for players, and fans who can't understand the rule.

[@debestcanadian]

Regardless of the rules in pro, what is the possible justification for allowing the runner to *ever* be to the left of the base path on a play such as this? I don't see any valid reason as to why the pro rule shouldn't be the same as college and high school. Honestly, I'd love for someone to provide a good reason

[@zachansen8293]

If you look at the MLB rulebook, it's just poorly implemented across the board. They don't seem to have to have a reason to do a bad job.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

oh please@@zachansen8293

[@scottcostello1786]

The runner creates his own base path. The runner can run wherever they want until someone attempts a tag on them. Exception, on runners lane interference. As Lindsay stated, the interference is based on the first baseman’s ability to field the throw. He would have needed a scissor lift to catch this ball. It’s not interference. Why is the rule different in NFHS? Probably because they don’t want kids getting drilled with a throw.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

@@scottcostello1786 wrong. the runner doesn't create their own base path, they must follow the one on the field.

[@RobInNJ03]

He's not even close.

[@spyderman312]

This was a shit call

[@LorainPsycho]

It looks to me like Lindor started running out of the baseline when he looked behind him, I don't think it was intentional. Either way, the catcher should've drilled him so the throw would've looked clean

[@NarcissisticTree]

Can y’all look at the review from last night’s Astros game in which they ruled a runner didn’t touch 3rd base in the 5th (maybe 6th) inning?

[@michaelangellotti4773]

He was egregiously out of the base line. If he had kept straight, he would of ran pass the 1st baseman on the far side.

[@-SkyCat-]

he even looked behind him to make sure he was in blocking the throw... NoCall naa he's out... no reason a runner needs to be there... None except to block the throw..

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

yep. some runners try to skirt just a bit outside that line so they can try to block the catcher's field of view and most get away with it. but not this time haha

[@brianmullaney6237]

Throw it into the numbers and it gets called every time. Airmail it into right field? Not the runners fault.

[@critter2]

really so how is that not interfrence that bunch of bs by mlb rule that is ludcirous they change it that bad

[@swolf2004]

Yeah, the catcher needs to be better there. I would coach the catcher to bean the runner if he is on the grass, then RLI is clear.

[@logana5479]

Lindor was literally touching grass he was way out of that runners lane lmao

[@CoryDAnimates]

Another example to add to the league catalog of ump training.

[@mwconservative]

you are 100% wrong. when the position of the runner, running out of the lane creates the necessity of the throw not being able to be made the runner is out for interference.

[@EvanPederson]

Not in MLB

[@mwconservative]

@@EvanPederson yes, in MLB…..no difference in a high throw than hitting the runner in the back with a throw. both are caused by the runner interfering with the ability to the throw being made….It is a judgement call on the part of the umpire.

[@EvanPederson]

@@mwconservative the throw is not relevant.

[@mwconservative]

@@EvanPederson the throw or actually the absence of a throwing lane is what is relevant.

[@EvanPederson]

@@mwconservative 5.09(a)(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..."

[@drewsummers7288]

Did Carlos Mendoza get ejected?

[@fifiwoof1969]

End clip - plate umpire takes precedence.

[@austin.draude]

That throw is four feet over the 1B's head. There's no way in hell this is RLI.

[@chesterthompson6835]

Are you saying that if the runner wasn't running illegally, that catcher couldn't have made a good throw? If Lindor was running legally, the throw wouldn't have had to be thrown high and he would have been out.

[@voxelation]

If Lindor wasn't running right at Goldschmidt, Goldschmidt had plenty of time to make a good jump and touch base before Lindor arrived at the base. And Goldschmidt was able to get his glove on the ball, meaning it wasn't completely uncatchable. Lindor is a left-handed batter running directly on the grass. He shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt of an "uncatchable throw" unless the throw sails completely away from the bag. The catcher shouldn't have to throw the ball at the batter-runner's back to draw the interference call.

[@gavinvelicevic1907]

Where is Pat Hoberg?

[@KevinQuinn81]

Agree with the no call. MLB should clarify this or add in some of the interpretations from the lower levels to make this an easier rule for everyone to remember and understand, but I agree. As written, this should have been a no call. Funny thing is when I first saw his position on the grass, I just assumed that he was coming from the right side of the plate and would be arguing that he was just going in a straight line to the base. For him to get THAT far over from the left side is just ludicrous.

[@zachansen8293]

They should change the rule so this call would have been correct. You have a TON of room to run. If there is any semblance of a play on you at first and you're in the grass, you should be out.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

that's literally in the rulebook already, lol@@zachansen8293

[@KevinQuinn81]

​@zachansen8293 I didn't mean change the rule for this play, I meant change the rule so that people stop getting confused by it or possibly exempting this type of obvious attempt to get in the way.

[@critter2]

they shouldn't keep changing the rule ot favor players who know the damn rules and do it anyway

[@KevinQuinn81]

​@critter2 Again, I don't want to make THIS play or ones like it legal, I just want them to make it more obvious for umpires, players, and fans.

[@chesterthompson6835]

BS, I've said this before, the runner is running illegally. Therefore, the throw is not a good throw, so therefore, he should be out. If he wasn't running illegally, then then the throw wouldn't have been high.

[@wesleycampbellcaretto6942]

Excellent analysis on what seemed initially like a pretty good call

[@deputyduffy]

It was a good call...

[@wesleycampbellcaretto6942]

​@@deputyduffyLindsey explains in a lot of detail exactly why the MLB rules do not consider that runners interference because the throw was so far off. Did you not watch the video???

[@FUGP72]

So how does this far territory "dirt" work since different fields have different width dirt areas in fair territory? Just another way this rule is absurd. Either paint a fucking line on the field, or don't. But you can't expand it without a clear UNIFORM width.

[@alanhess9306]

I'm going to disagree with you about the NFHS rule. RULE 8 SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT ART. 1 . . . The batter-runner is out when: "g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or 1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw." So there must be interference to get the out.

[@TheFreshmanWIT]

Ah, you beat me to it! You're absolutely right, the NFHS rule DOES require interference with the fielder or throw, it is just in a sub-paragraph. The NFHS rulebook is pretty poorly written in this regard, but the video is incorrect here.

[@critter2]

he has no case he out

[@richardbobby4992]

Someone didn’t listen to the breakdown.

[@tw1nn319]

Gotta interfere for it to be called RLI, can’t have an out if there’s no interference. A bad throw is not interfering with the play

[@PapaVanTwee5]

You could make the argument this is an out two ways. One, he interfered with the fielder taking the throw because the throw was possibly altered by him being out of the base line. Two, the fielder, seeing Lindor barreling down on him from the grass, altered his fielding in anticipation of possibly getting hit by Lindor. Both are bad interpretations, but both legitimately are a concern in this instance. You shouldn't run between thrower and fielder to alter the throw, and you shouldn't run at a fielder to intimidate them.

[@johnthomas1422]

Sometimes the rule is wrong. When an umpires' call interferes with the flow of the game, it is a bad call regardless of legitimacy. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. We need to apply common sense again.

[@teebob21]

Yeah, that's not how baseball works, man. Best of luck with your Boogaloo, though.

[@no_flux_given]

Why can’t they just stay in the dirt

[@Desirsar]

Been saying this the whole time. They trained themselves to run in the path of the throw, and now that it's being called, they can train themselves to not run in the path for a six figure minimum salary...

[@donsheffler]

They want to cause the catcher to throw it away, or hit them in the back with it, because it isn’t interference, just as it isn’t interference on any other base. The ump actually blew this call very badly. The runner did exactly what he intended to do and it worked.

[@randominternet5586]

Especially if garbage like this get's no called! They are running in the path of the throw on purpose, and AT the first baseman on purpose - to interfere with their ability to field the throw. This seems pretty obvious. MLB has turned into a bunch of lawyers looking for reasons to not call obvious calls. This is an obvious call - it should be interpretated in the fielders favor on this stuff - they already have relatively little protection. Run in the runners lane? Is that so hard?

[@Desirsar]

I've also said since this started being enforced more that the rule needs to change to the high school rule. Step out of the lane, automatic out. Make it reviewable.

[@zachansen8293]

because then they're safe when something like this happens. If you're out if you don't cheat then you may as well cheat.

[@oldfrend]

the rule as written basically encourages runners to always run on the grass cuz if they're gonna be out anyway, might as well make it interesting and give the umps an opportunity to mess it up like here, or get in the catcher's head and cause him to mess up the throw, also like here.

[@debestcanadian]

The rule as written encourages the runner to run on the grass, for which the pragmatic response for the catcher is that he should drill the runner in the back. Which will naturally cause brawls and possibly serious injuries. So yeah, this rule in the pros should absolutely be modified to mimic that of college. Just stay in the damn lane, it isn't hard!

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

Is it REALLY too much to ask to expect at least ONE umpire in this crew to know what the f'ing rule is???

[@UmpireLive]

Wish you talked more about NCAA Softball in your analysis! There’s a big audience for this! MLB has the same rule for this. You have to interfere with the fielder taking the throw. Errant throws are an excuse to ignore any possible Interference.

[@randominternet5586]

Having someone barreling at you throws you off. And the interpretation should go against the runner when you are THAT far out of the runners lane. So it interfered with his ability to catch even that bad throw, an extra inch or two and he would have had it. If you start no calling this then they should just go to the high school rule in MLB and call them out if they can't stand on the dirt. Enough of the nonsense - the runners lane is plenty wide and clear enough. It sometimes seems like MLB and MLB replay's entire goal is to come up with nonsense reasons for stuff to happen that makes no sense.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

exactly.

[@hayjamawas]

Could you crew safe if you’re the CC here?

[@CloseCallSports]

Yes, but only with a conference.

[@stoytastic]

Can you talk about the non runner interference call today in the brewers/Yankees game when judge extended his arm straight up to block the throw and interfere?

[@a_badali]

That old rule is lookin pretty good right now

[@Renegade605]

Rule change or not, this play should be officiated the same. Lindor was all the way onto the grass, which is out of the runner's lane regardless of the rule change.

[@a_badali]

@@Renegade605 I concur. This is what happens when people act on emotion

[@mskolnik2]

No the "old" "rule" doesn't look any better, and no this play wasn't changed by it

[@a_badali]

@@mskolnik2 he's running to exploit the new rule.....

[@mskolnik2]

@@a_badali It doesn't exploit the "new" rule", which shows your ignorance because the rule isn't even new. The grass never was, and never has been included in the new focus, or the rule itself

[@MwD676]

Not sure the lip reading of Lindor’s argument is accurate. It is possible he was arguing that he did not need to be in the lane. While this is RLI in NCAA & NFHS, it most certainly should motivate be in OBR. OBR puts a very clear requirement on the thrower (C) to make one good enough to reasonably retire the runner. Bacchus accidentally applies an interpretation from a different rule set.

[@robinrichards6275]

It looks to me like the throw was made high because the runner would have been in his line to the first baseman when the ball got there. Thus, the runner affected the reception.

[@jeremygoldenberg9617]

What you just described is interfering with the throw, not the catch. Trying to say it affected the catch because it affected the throw is nonsense.

[@teebob21]

While I agree with your view, the rules don't support a runner simply existing and affecting the angle of the throw. The runner must interfere with the fielder taking the throw to be INT under OBR.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

@@teebob21 pure baloney. you can see the first baseman be leery when he lands because he was scared he was gonna make contact with the runner. to say he wasn't impacted by the runner in the grass is nonsense. get your cataracts removed.

[@zachansen8293]

The runner affected the THROW.

[@chocolatecoveredgummybears]

careful zach, you might make teebob have a stroke! 😅@@zachansen8293