Відео

The runner should be in the RUNNERS LANE!!! That’s why it’s there, and that’s what it’s called. What is the RUNNING LANE for?? I believe it’s for running to first. The running lane defines the path that a batter-runner must take when advancing to first base. A baserunner who runs outside the running lane while a play is in progress may be called for interference. Out!

rules woud disagree with you.

If the collision happened in the running lane (it didn’t) I would agree with you. But the runner wasn’t IN the RUNNING LANE. That’s what that is literally called. What is the RUNNING LANE for?? I believe it’s for running to first. The running lane defines the path that a batter-runner must take when advancing to first base. A baserunner who runs outside the running lane while a play is in progress may be called for interference. Runner is called for interference. Out!

@zacharydickens5381 Nope, he was safe since they blocked the lane. Safe

@ neither the pitcher OR first baseman were in the running lane. You know the special box to the RIGHT of the foul line?? That’s for the runner. If he ran there… nobody would be there, and if they were it would’ve been fielder’s interference.

@zacharydickens5381 But they called him safe because they blocked him. Go watch the full video

@ what is the runners lane?? What is it?? What is it for?? They did NOT block the runners lane. Go google “runners lane on a baseball field” and tell me what it’s for.

Except he has no restrictions. no tag is being made on him and there's no throw to first base. The only obligation the runner has is to avoid the protected field, which is the first basemen. Even if he doesn't intentionally it doesn't matter he has a right to that space and the pitcher doesn't because he's not protected.

You know a few baseball rule terms but your judgement is terrible. Are you the guy who is not an umpire but you make proclamation about rules? The batter- runner was 10 feet from both F-1 & F-3 when the ball was fielded by F-1. Greg Gibson protected F-1 who fielded the ball. F-3 has no right to impede the batter- runner. F-3 was never protected and he obstructed the batter - runner. Your powers of observation are almost non existent. Greg Gibson points at F-3 indicating he obstructed the batter- runner. You don’t know how umpires think or act.

@@Say-hey24 You also know this play is over 10 years old and has mile long threads talked about it and intern was ruled in favor of the Umpire as the correct call. You're complete interpretation of this ruling and what the umpires calling is incorrect. Why is he coming down the line and pointing at the pitcher if he's protected? The answer is not he's calling obstruction on the pitcher because in his eyes he's not protected. The pitch is in the runners path long before having possession and just because he has possession before collision doesn't take away an obstruction. Having possession of the ball means you cannot obstruct, but that's once you have possession. if you obstruct before having possession, it doesn't magically go away. if that was the case, then every single catcher would sit on the plate and completely block and as long as they get the ball before the runner gets there, it's not obstruction? That's not how it works. Now, if you're argument is that the umpires judgment of whose protected is wrong is fine because the end result is still obstruction. if the protected field is the pitcher in your eyes, then the runner having to take a step inside to avoid the first baseman makes it an obstruction on the first baseman. No matter how you look at this, it's going to be obstruction because by rule on a batted ball only one fielder is protected. because both of them are in the same spot which is in the runners path no matter whose protected obstruction is going to be called.

What is the RUNNING LANE for?? I believe it’s for running to first. The running lane defines the path that a batter-runner must take when advancing to first base. A baserunner who runs outside the running lane while a play is in progress may be called for interference. So why did the collision happen in fare territory??

@@Say-hey24 Honestly, reading your comment back again is even more funny because does it really matter? You're just trying to argue and be a troll for something so petty. Honestly just laughable. Also, you saying that the runner is 10 feet away from the fielders when the ball was caught just to give some advice, you might need to get a new tape measure because someone's modify it to impress a significant other.

@@zacharydickens5381 Yes, only if said act of not being in the runners lane impedes a fielders ability to field a "thrown ball" to first base. Read the whole rule. If you're not in the runners lane, you're not automatically called for interference you still need an act and impeding a thrown ball. This ball isn't being thrown it hasn't even been fielded yet so that rule doesn't apply. at the same time, the rule also has an exception where a runner is also allowed to not be in that space if they are attempting to avoid a fielder. So again this is not a thrown ball but under that same clause, he has a right and an obligation to avoid a fielder in his way. The rules very specific it prevents a runner from impeding a throw

or you're applying the rule incorrectly. Runners lane is very specific and that it only restricts a runner from impeding a fielder ability to catch a "thrown ball" at first base. This is a batted ball, not a thrown one so that rule doesn't apply.

Not how obstruction works. The problem is the pitcher is not protected and doesn't have a right to that space. because of this where he is in relation to the runner puts him in the runners path before having possession, which makes it obstruction. The runner has a right to an unobstructed path. A player that has possession cannot obstruction once having possession, but, possession doesn't magically take away an obstruction that happened before possession.

The rules are the rules, even when it’s a 1% case.

@calebmantle2910 I agree, but it doesn't mean I have to like it

The only counter I have to what you're saying is why did the pitcher have to go after the ball? The runner was going to be out, but is he doing something wrong? No he's not so why would this rule frustrate you? I can understand being frustrated at the pitcher but not the rule.

@@itissoldier7837 the pitcher is trying to field the ball, and in fact does field the ball and makes the play on the runner. I fully understand the rule, and the rule is good and has the correct result 99% of the time. But this time, it doesn't. This runner was always going to be out, and should have been out; the obstruction by F3 (or F1 depending on how you look at it) changed nothing.

@@davej3781 I mean being its obstruction it changes everything. The runner has a right to an unobstructed path. Why should he get bodied out because two players don't decide to communicate. You're assuming an out is a finite conclusion, but I ask you in this situation who's covering first base? The answer is no one or maybe the second base coming on who's gonna have to make a running and catch. Nothing in this play is as clear cut as your making it.

The batter- runner ran right at the rag; he couldn’t have been more centered in his established base path. How do you come up with this shit? I can argue there never was a base path, but if there was a tag attempt he ran right at the tag attempt. Centered in his running lane.

He was centered in his base path.

I meant to say base path. There is no base path in bade til the moment a fielder attempts to tag a runner

Except that rule only applies on a thrown ball to first base. This ball hasn't even been fielded yet so that rule doesn't apply.

@ obstruction occurs after the ball is fielded by F-1. Are you watching the video while drinking alcoholic beverages?

You are so incredibly dazed and confused. Runners have the right away at all times except when a fielder is fielding a batted ball. The ball was fielded before the batter - runner reached F-1 & F-3. The batter - runner can run straight at the fielder. F-3 obstructed the batter- runner. It’s why he collided with F-1. Why do you think you are qualified to explain baseball rules?

The runner only has to avoid one fielder. the one in the eyes of the Umpire that has the best opportunity to play the ball which would be the first baseman. The runner doesn't have to avoid everyone just the single protected fielder.

Wrong, how do you come up with this shit? The running lane is to protect a fielder taking a throw to first base. Do you see a throw to first base?

The “‘line” is irrelevant in the case play. Do you mean the foul line? It’s irrelevant

@Say-hey24 Pardon me, I was referring to the baseline. If it’s irrelevant, then it only goes to show my ignorance. I was under the impression that a runner is supposed to follow some sort of path to a base, as opposed to just running where they feel like. If I’m incorrect in believing that a runner leaving the baseline when it is unobstructed by a fielder, and running into the fielder who has the ball secured in his glove, should result in the runner being called out, then again, it only speaks to my ignorance regarding the rules of baseball. In any case, my original points remain: the pitcher, not the first baseman, has the ball, and neither fielder is obstructing the runners path to the base until after the runner leaves the (apparently pointless) baseline and runs into the pitcher, who, again, has the ball secured in his glove. Edit: @Say-hey24 I get what you’re saying. There’s no longer a “baseline,” in the traditional sense, because baseball (like football and basketball) has “improved” their terminology and adjusted their rules. Cool. In any case, the 2 fielders were on the inside grass until the runner left the path and ran into them. Not sure how that’s obstruction on the fielders.

@ Sir, the running lane has been around since 1882 for the National League and 1884 for the American League. The foul line used to go through the center of first base. The running lane was established to reduce injuries. The running lane interference rule only comes into play when a fielder is throwing a ball to a fielder at first base from the home plate area. The throw usually comes from the catcher. The rule is to protect the fielder at first base trying to take a throw. Why do you speak about baseball rules? Why do you think you are qualified to say anything about baseball rules?

@@Say-hey24 Man, you are correct about the terminology not having changed for a long time. I see that my comment about the terminology/rules change came from a place of ignorance. Most of what I pointed out in my original comment was true, and you chose to pick on me for talking about the baseline/base path. Did I misunderstand in this video that the runner was awarded 1st because a fielder was deemed to have blocked his path? Was the pitcher the one in the wrong? Is it ok that the runner veered left into the grass and ran into the fielder holding the ball when no one was in the running lane at the time (I’m seriously asking)? If you’ve got the knowledge, help me understand, because it feels like you want to make me look stupid (good enough at that myself) instead of sharing what you know, and commenting on observations that I actually did get right. That may not have been your intention, but that’s how it felt. Sorry if I got a little belligerent. In the beginning, I was mostly pointing out that people were saying the wrong guy had the ball, and that the wrong guy was in the running lane (or whatever the terminology is)(and he wasn’t even off the grass when the runner veered).

@ nothing you stated is true and accurate. The first baseman obstructed the batter- runner. Anytime a batter - runner is obstructed before first base the ball is immediately dead and the batter - runner is awarded first base.

But if there is a player in the lane without the ball then what? Both lanes were full

There is no base line. There is a foul line. Call it a base line if you must, but the foul line is not relevant in the case play.

@@jonathanlunsford1there is no lane. The running lane is irrelevant in the case play. It’s obstruction on F-3.

The runner's lane has no bearing on a potential tag play. In fact, he is required to avoid the fielder making a play on the batted ball. Problem is that he was obstructed by the pitcher--who did not have the ball.

@@MwD676the pitcher did have the ball though. He showed the ump. That’s why they were arguing

@@MwD676batter- runner was obstructed F-3. Greg Gibson points at F-3 indicating he obstructed the batter- runner. It was impossible for F-1 to obstruct the runner because he had the ball.

@@matthewrickards5562you are correct. It is impossible to obstruct a runner when you posses the ball. F-3 obstructed the runner.

@@itissoldier7837Greg Gibson points at F-3 indicating he obstructed the batter - runner. It’s impossible to obstruct a runner when you posses the ball

The 1st baseman can impede him all he wants because he is making a play on a batted ball--and then, he is in possession of the ball. Pitcher does not have possession, and he does not have protection to field the ball--because 1B did.

@@MwD676wrong, only one fielder can be protected. Greg Gibson protected the pitcher who fielded the ball. It’s obstruction on F-3. How do you come up with this shit?

@@MwD676A MLB crew chief disagrees with you.

​@@Say-hey24 runner is out by virtue of being in fair territory and not in the running lane. Umpire is wrong. Angel Hernandez?

@ you are an ignorant buffoon. Greg Gibson easily made the correct call. The obstruction is obvious.

@@azzzzzzz46 why?