- 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 10:01 am to MOT
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:01 am to MOT
quote:
A magic throw wasn’t required.
that is purely a judgement call.
There is a designated running lane that was violated. that caused the catcher to have to make a mental adjustment because the runner was violating the rule. That should not be rewarded.
I think that 'interfering with the throw' was probably put into the rule book to handle things like a throw from third base, where the position of the runner does not influence the execution of the normal throw.
In this case, the catcher has to make an accommodation to a normal throw to avoid hitting the runner who is in his normal range for making the play.
it is a 'judgement' call by the umpire - and in this case I think the judgement was wrong.
and yes - it SHOULD have been no problem to make the proper throw - doesn't mean the runner should be given the grace to violate HIS responsibility to run in the PROPER lane.
The runner had already "got lucky" in not striking out on the pitch - he barely tipped the ball - and then violated the lane rule. He deserved no laxity in interpretation the rule.
1
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:02 am to ramchallenge
quote:
What do you expect... it's Alabama and it's Birmingham?! Enough said!
Stop. You just sound like a puss now
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:07 am to DhanTigers212
quote:
You can acknowledge that it should have been called interference with running out of baseline and also agree that we choked the game away.
THIS is the proper way to view the situation.
It is OK to discuss the fine points of how the rule was applied in this instance - WITHOUT making perforative comments on the player trying to do the best he could in the circumstance.
That was one play - there were MANY other mistakes along the way that should have made that play immaterial.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:08 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
that is purely a judgement call.
There is a designated running lane that was violated. that caused the catcher to have to make a mental adjustment because the runner was violating the rule. That should not be rewarded.
I think that 'interfering with the throw' was probably put into the rule book to handle things like a throw from third base, where the position of the runner does not influence the execution of the normal throw.
In this case, the catcher has to make an accommodation to a normal throw to avoid hitting the runner who is in his normal range for making the play.
it is a 'judgement' call by the umpire - and in this case I think the judgement was wrong.
and yes - it SHOULD have been no problem to make the proper throw - doesn't mean the runner should be given the grace to violate HIS responsibility to run in the PROPER lane.
The runner had already "got lucky" in not striking out on the pitch - he barely tipped the ball - and then violated the lane rule. He deserved no laxity in interpretation the rule.
This is exactly what happened. They just ruled against us, contrary to what the article states would happen "more often than not" at the CWS.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:09 am to Geauxtigersgeaux12
Geauxtigers has the answer, catcher should have hit him in the back with the ball.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:16 am to L S Usetheforce
I believe technically that could be true but looking at the picture Milazzo was half way to the picture’s mound so I’m not sure if his throwing angle was really obstructed by the runner.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:17 am to L S Usetheforce
Not sure why some people are having trouble with this. By the letter of the rule, it was clearly interference. Granted LSU should never have been in a position to lose a game that way, and I think the rule is ridiculous and needs further clarification. But that is the rule. And by the rule, this was undoubtedly interference.
Anybody who watches baseball has seen this play many, many times called interference. One has to wonder if the roles were reversed, would the LSU baserunner have been called out for interference???
Anybody who watches baseball has seen this play many, many times called interference. One has to wonder if the roles were reversed, would the LSU baserunner have been called out for interference???
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:27 am to Forever
From his angle he had a clear throw, had he been down the line trying to make the throw, that dude would have been called for interference. I’ve seen them called out for less.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:29 am to des4271
quote:
From his angle he had a clear throw, had he been down the line trying to make the throw, that dude would have been called for interference. I’ve seen them called out for less.
This.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:31 am to Forever
Runner was WELL inside the line until right before the bag. Even if it didn't affect the throw, it did interfere with Milazxo's line of sight
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:38 am to Forever
They never are. Our baseball fans are insane! Excuses out the arse for everything.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:39 am to L S Usetheforce
I’ve always thought that was an automatic call but I think officials used their discretion because the ball was thrown so poorly . If the ball had been better thrown we probably get the call. We’ve got to flush that game and try and move on.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:41 am to MT555
I’m not making excuses. I’m simply calling the rule because it’s like the most emphasized rule in Omaha
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:43 am to Bryno1960
quote:It's either a rule or it's not.
Doesn’t matter because LSU should not have been in that situation in the first place. No excuses!
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:48 am to MikeTheTiger11
quote:
So where was he when the ball was actually being fielded at first.
Doesn’t matter. There was a fielding play made at 1st. He was out of the running lane
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:52 am to Forever
quote:
any good ump isn’t calling interference unless the runner is actually obstructing or attempting to obstruct the throwing lane ETA: this is how the rule is actually writte
Why are you so sure that it didn’t effect him fielding and throwing? Was there a bad throw? Did he hesitate when throwing? Think it all the way out. How can you be so sure that him illegally running outside of the batter-runner lane did not effect him throwing the ball?
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 11:53 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:57 am to STEVED00
One of these was called interference and the other wasn’t. In the UF game, thatcher actually had a better angle to first and the UF runner was actually closer to the baseline. By the objective angles, the Alabama play was actually a more egregious interference than what was called one in the UF game.
For those saying the Alabama player didn’t impede the throw…. The ball doesn’t need to hit him and it doesn’t need to be a perfect throw for it to be interference. If, by the angle, it hypothetically impedes the throw then he’s out. The botched actual throw doesn’t change that.
It was interference…..case settled. Let’s all get on with our day
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:58 am to L S Usetheforce
No self respecting umpire is going to call interference on that based on how far away from the plate the ball was when the catcher picked it up. He had plenty of angle to make a good throw.
He failed to do so.
Quit crying over this. It’s embarrassing
He failed to do so.
Quit crying over this. It’s embarrassing
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:00 am to geauxbrown
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:07 am to Forever
quote:
When are you going to shut the frick up?
Why don't you STFU!
quote:
It wasn’t interference by any stretch of the imagination, either in written rules or by their interpretation based on the broader rule.
Well, that is easy to disprove since rule was provided on here several times over the years and there has been CWS finals decided on plays that similar.
quote:It's not my fault you can't understand what you're seeing. You fkn people trip me out. You're right though, people with a full brain can see and comprehend what they are seeing. Thanks for admitting and proving the point. Wow, you fkn idiot!
No one with half a brain sees that picture and thinks “runner’s interference”.
They should have never been in that situation but they were and nobody knows but Al and Bear if the kid illegally running inside the batter-runner path effected them fielding the ball at 1st or not. But the rule doesn't say ask them and find out. It says if the batter-runner does then it's interference. Should be as simple as that, even for you.
Page 3 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News