If we interpret the rule as written above and as many have made it sound, I'm curious about this situation: What if a lefty bunted a ball, and the pitcher runs and fields it on the 1st base line. The baserunner is running outside the line as is "normal". As the pitcher fields and throws it, his momentum is carrying him into foul territory--so the baserunner is now between the fielder and the 1st baseman. And say the ball hits the runner. Based on everything we've been saying--i.e. "it doesn't matter where the runner was--only matters if he impeded the ability for the fielder to throw to the 1st baseman, so they should've hit Correa in the back".. wouldn't the runner in the above situation be out for interference even though he just ran outside the line to 1st?
If you are running outside the line you are always safe. It's not the runners job to make an angle for the fielder, they just can't run illegally to create an obstruction. Anybody that says it doesn't matter where the runner is, is wrong. Techincally they can call a runner out even if the ball doesn't hit him, but they virtually never do. I'm not sure why, they just don't. Hitting him is the only way you can undeniably claim he obstructed you.
Luhnow on 790 just now said that White will get the majority of the starts at 1B and Valbuena will get the majority of the starts at 3B.
Its a near certainty tomorrows game will be rained out. Wish they would just go ahead and play a double header today, rather than some 1 game make up trip later.
I agree in principle. But the way the rule is written (Castor posted at bottom of last page) and what everyone has been citing says that--paraphrasing: "if the runner is running inside OR outside the line, if he gets in the way of the fielder taking the throw at 1st, it's a dead ball". While I understand that it shouldn't apply to someone outside the line...as written, it seemingly does. If that's the rule everyone is citing to claim it was called correctly yesterday, then I would think the same rule should apply in the scenario I outlined. Just trying to point out either an inconsistency or, more likely, that this rule shouldn't be used on its own even for yesterday's ruling because there's clearly more required.
Somebody was mistaken if they claimed any form of obstruction is illegal, regardless of where the runner is. You have to be running in fair territory, and they have to hit you with the ball. If you are in the proper running lane and they hit you, then it's still a live ball and no interference will be called.
this is covered in the first line of the rule: To the right of the 3 foot line is outside the running lane in foul territory.To the left of the foul line is in fair territory. There is a lane the runner should run in that extends from the foul line to 3 feet into foul territory. Although it seems kind of convoluted the first line of the rule means if they are outside the running lane and interfere with the ability of the fielder to catch a throw then it is obstruction. If he is in the 3 foot lane there is no obstruction no matter what happens. Example1: Dropped 3rd strike runner takes off and runs in the running lane. 1st baseman stands on the foul side of 1st base and the catcher hits the runner with the throw the runner is safe because he was in the designated running lane. Example 2: Dropped third strike runner takes off but runs in fair territory (outside the designated lane). 1st baseman stands on the fair side of 1st to take the throw. Catcher hits the runner outside the lane. Runner is out for obstruction. Had teams been switched yesterday, I probably would have been upset like Girardi was. But looking at the rule, the umpires made the correct call. He impeded the way the ball was thrown, but that is not how the rule is written. He has to impede the catch which didn't happen because the throw was so awful.
This NY weather blows...what a piece of **** city/team. When I anticipate the start of a season so much, dont **** with my emotions by giving me crap weather. :grin:
What bothers me a little is that make up games can often times rob your team of a much needed off day sometime later in the season. Worse, it will be a one day road trip to NY. Unless were coming off or on a road trip on the east coast, this is will be a schedule wrench at the least. Perhaps disrupt our rhythm. Not a major deal, but annoying. Especially where playing two today would solve the problem.
That's correct. In this instance there was just a throwing error, you could say that it was influenced by where Correa was running, but there's no way of knowing that. Throwing errors like that do just happen sometimes and I don't think you can blame Correa for the pitcher throwing the ball several feet over the first baseman. If the pitcher was smart, he'd have just pegged Correa with the ball ensuring the interference call.
Well, it would actually put us back on schedule. Otherwise, we would have lost the day off in the beginning that was figured in. I think we would have been the only team to open with 13 straight games while the Royals would've have 2 days off before next week.
I think we are worried about off days of the future being filled with make up games. That's an actual issue.
I thought the post above mine was talking about how the Astros have to open up with 13 straight games, while the Royals have 2 days off... But as to your point, they typically find a way to get it done (if needed) to minimize potential extra travel. On quick glance, the Astros and Yankees share some common off days. Hell, they could even agree to play the game in Houston (4 games instead of 3), which would suck that NY lost a home game... but not unprecedented. Worst comes to worst, it gets played at the end of the regular season... and only if its actually needed to impact playoff games.
