re: It’s interference. With visual evidence and the rule

You said the rule is designed to not allow anyone to run inside the line and that simply is not correct.

If you want to talk about the contact it occurred after the ball had already been thrown down the RF line and our first baseman was sitting on the bag, not during his attempt to make a play on it.

quote:

---

The rule is designed to prevent anyone from being inside the foul line.

---

Swing and a miss

quote:

---

Like Omaha is the prime education on this rule. They even have a website for it. LINK

---

From your link.

quote:

---

Finally, not only must the runner be running illegally, but also he must interfere. A runner who runs up the grass to 1st base (illegal), but doesn’t interfere with the fielder receiving the ball at 1st is NOT guilty of Runner’s Lane Interference. As such, umpires will simply allow play to continue.

---

This is what yall are missing. The runner did NOT interfere with that catch bc the ball was there first and Jones couldn’t get to it.

If Jones catches it and gets bulldozed and drops the ball, it’s an out.

If Milazzo hits the runner with the ball, it’s an out.

If Milazzo throws the ball to the giant standing on 1B, it’s an out.

Literally only one way that play happens bad for LSU and it happened last night bc the ball wasn’t catchable and therefore no one interfered with the catch.

More from that link

quote:

---

It is generally accepted that a throw must be catchable in order to invoke this penalty, but umpires will side with the defense in this judgement more often than not if the runner was illegal running up the lane. The NCAA rule adds a clause which does not exist in the MLB rule book (Rule 5.09 (a) (11)) or the NFHS book ( Rule 8 Section 4 Article 1 (g)) which is “hinders or alters the throw of a fielder.” As a result, in NCAA a non-catchable throw could be more easily adjudged as interference by an umpire who believes that the position of the runner prevented or altered the fielder from making a catchable throw.

---

Please explain how the throw was interfered with

Milazzos throw took this path crossing in front of the runner all without hitting the runner. It’s empirical proof the runner didn’t interfere with the throw. Because the center of the bag and left of the bag is even more open then going right of it



If his throw would have crossed behind the runner due to him blocking first or hit the runner y’all would have an argument. But it didn’t.

The rule, as I read it, simply says, there does NOT need to be contact with anyone or anything for the rule to be called. Regarding the last play, your line does not show the true story as the picture is at an angle.

From the way I read the Omaha explanation, the fact that the runner is inside the foul line, beyond the halfway mark and the fact that the fielder needed to make the throw on THAT SIDE of the bag, regardless of where the ball ends up, the call should be made.

Nevertheless, that inning during the 2 out time period perfectly sums up our season. When our veteran players are not playing their best (Tanks, Milazzo, Herring, Jones), we lose.

The rule specifically says it CAN be called...that means...Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, with 2 outs during a home game for Bama...it won't be called.

It was not interference. The problem was the catcher trying to throw like Mahomes to 1st base...period!

quote:

---

And a 1st Baseman who can't catch.

---

I miss Tre Morgan

quote:

---

It’s interference. With visual evidence and the rule

---

This was my interpretation also - but I looked up the rule.

There is an exception:

quote:

---

It is the responsibility of the fielder making the throw (usually catcher F2 or pitcher F1, possibly F3 or F5 on a bunt, etc.) to ensure that the throw could reasonably retire the runner if not for the potential interference. If the throw cannot reasonably retire the runner, it is not RLI.

---

I watched a replay of the play - it looked to me like the throw was too far to the right of first base for Jones to have fielded it and make a play.

IF he had barreled over the runner to make the catch, then he would have been guilty of interference.

HOWEVER -
in looking at the replay it appears to me that the runner was in fair territory - and that makes it more difficult to make a normal throw to first base.

IN MY OPINION _ the runner should have been called out for interfering with the throw.

The fielder should not be required to make a magic throw if the runner is violating the rule in the first place - Do Not Understand the
"responsibility of the fielder" rule in this instance.

But it was Alabama, right ???

quote:

---

Literally only one way that play happens bad for LSU and it happened last night bc the ball wasn’t catchable and therefore no one interfered with the catch.

---

This is sort of my interpretation also - I had to read up on this rule - never knew much about it because I was taught to stay in the proper running lane.

The one time I did run in fair territory, I got called out. (that is how I learned about the rule - )

I still think that deliberately running inside fair territory for a ball that will be put in play behind you should be an automatic out - because that makes the fielder make a more difficult throw. The lane is there to ensure fair play - there should not be an exception to reward UNFAIR play.

But the rule is written as it is written - and that leaves it up to umpire's judgement on what is an 'easy play' vs 'more difficult play'

The umpires have enough to sort out in real time -

and Alabama refs do not need more latitude in exercising their 'discretion' - especially vs LSU

quote:

---

You simply aren’t reading the rule. It’s very clear

---

Oh, I absolutely read it. But, I kept reading since, how does one define "interference"? The explanation in the article was very clear. At the CWS, the ruling is made in the favor of the DEFENSE (emphasis added) in the majority of the cases. Why?

Well, I take that to mean, how does the umpire "know" that the runner running inside the line isn't interfering with the fielder's line of sight, ability to throw etc. Most everyone is reading the rule as being black and white. It isn't. The article clearly states there is some subjectivity to the rule and that, at the CWS, the umpires almost always rule in favor of the defense.

From the article itself:
"Contact is not necessary between the runner and the fielder, but it certainly makes it a more obvious call for the umpires. The umpire may simply judge that the fielder did not have an opportunity to catch the ball as a result of the potential collision. It is generally accepted that a throw must be catchable in order to invoke this penalty, but umpires will side with the defense in this judgement more often than not if the runner was illegal running up the lane. The NCAA rule adds a clause which does not exist in the MLB rule book (Rule 5.09 (a) (11)) or the NFHS book ( Rule 8 Section 4 Article 1 (g)) which is “hinders or alters the throw of a fielder.” As a result, in NCAA a non-catchable throw could be more easily adjudged as interference by an umpire who believes that the position of the runner prevented or altered the fielder from making a catchable throw."