- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It’s interference. With visual evidence and the rule
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:10 am to L S Usetheforce
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:10 am to L S Usetheforce
Milazzo should’ve hit him in the back with the ball and it would’ve been called.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:17 am to L S Usetheforce
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.
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.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:20 am to L S Usetheforce
I am not complaining about it, because Milazzo somehow threw to the outside of the base and didn’t even hit the runner, lol. You are 100% right based on the rule.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:21 am to L S Usetheforce
quote:
The rule is designed to prevent anyone from being inside the foul line.
Swing and a miss
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:22 am to Forever
You are the person who is fooled. The rule clearly states you can not run on the left side of the foul line. Thanks for proving you know nothing about baseball. With that being stated, what a piss poor effort by this team. That is little league errors and shouldn’t be part of major college baseball. This team doesn’t deserve to win crap. Here’s to hoping for next year.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:27 am to L S Usetheforce
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.
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 8:29 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 8:56 am to notbilly
What do you expect... it's Alabama and it's Birmingham?! Enough said!
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:05 am to ramchallenge
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.
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.
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 9:06 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:12 am to L S Usetheforce
I shouldn’t have to explain this to this board but here I am.
You can acknowledge that it should have been called interference with running out of baseline and also agree that we choked the game away. Both of those things can be true. Why can’t some of you comprehend this. Just because a person thinks the rule should’ve been called doesn’t mean they are “making excuses”.
You can acknowledge that it should have been called interference with running out of baseline and also agree that we choked the game away. Both of those things can be true. Why can’t some of you comprehend this. Just because a person thinks the rule should’ve been called doesn’t mean they are “making excuses”.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:16 am to lsupride87
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.
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.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:17 am to L S Usetheforce
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!
It was not interference. The problem was the catcher trying to throw like Mahomes to 1st base...period!
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 9:18 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:17 am to ChiefCornerstone
quote:It says the throw must be interfered with though
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.
Milazzo threw to the right of the bag and the throw still wasn’t interfered with. If it’s thrown right at the bag or left of the bag it’s even further from being interfered with
quote:
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.
You simply aren’t reading the rule. It’s very clear
quote:
NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) : In running the last half of the distance from home plate to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, the batter-runner runs outside the 3-foot restraining line or inside the foul line and, in so doing, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, except that the batter may go outside these lines to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 9:19 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:24 am to JodyPlauche
quote:
And a 1st Baseman who can't catch.
I miss Tre Morgan
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:42 am to L S Usetheforce
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 ???
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:50 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:A magic throw wasn’t required. The ball was fielded far enough into the field of play that the runner’s position didn’t affect the ability to throw.
The fielder should not be required to make a magic throw
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:53 am to notbilly
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
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:53 am to MOT
quote:
I’m sorry but it is. If the rule is to prevent people from running inside the line it would be called hundreds of times every week.
Try per day.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:58 am to lsupride87
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."
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 10:02 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:59 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:a simple throw right at jones chest was all that was needed
The fielder should not be required to make a magic throw
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News