The reason baseball debates sound almost Talmudic is because the scribes at MLB, who wrote the rules, are as clear as mud. Take the Obstruction Rule: "Obstruction describes an act by a fielder, who is not in possession of the ball or in the process of fielding it, that impedes the baserunner's progress." By this definition, Gurriel obstructed Turner; he's safe. However, take the Fielder Right of Way rule: "Fielders have a right to occupy any space needed to catch or field a batted ball and also must not be hindered while attempting to field a thrown ball," which could easily mean Gurriel had a greater right to block first base in order to field the ball than Turner had a right to run to it: Turner's out. When the rules contradict, it's the umpire's judgement that matters in the end. Holbrook made the call from home plate, which is about 90 feet too far. If the play was at second or third, where tag plays are more common, then typically both men have a right to the same space at the same time. The one who arrives first, and either evades the tag, or makes it is the victor. The same rules should apply at first before the bag. Some allege Turner was outside the basepath, but replays show that to be incorrect. Bad call during a big game. Fortunately, Rendon made it moot. More debate to follow.
3
I think the first baseman Gurriel should have been called for interfering with the runner. He put his glove in the path of the runner (can be seen clearly in video in this article). Gurriel had his foot on 1st base, and could have put Turner out by reaching into the throw instead of putting his glove OVER the baseline making the flight time of the ball increase. There was NO WAY Turner could avoid hitting the glove, and Gurriel probably knew that. During the pause, in a game interview, one of the players said that infielders are taught to throw the ball "at the runner". I do not believe this. Usually the 1st base player is stretching towards the player with a foot on 1st to shorten the throw time from the fielder and make the force out at 1st.
1
@Mike W
Minor correction:
"Usually the 1st base player is stretching towards the >>fielding<< player with a foot on 1st to shorten the throw time from the fielder and make the force out at 1st."
1
I sat in near amazement when the interference call was made against Trea Turner. It's a call that is almost never made in the first place, but made in game six of the World Series?
All's well that ends well. The call was not decisive, as the Nats went on to win the game anyway, and will end up as a mere footnote in a truly exciting Fall Classic. For all its faults (e.g. that games are too long), baseball endures and will be around long after football is reduced to some flag football silliness.
The Senate Rules Committee will examine this as soon as they complete their HRC Bengazi Investigation. A ruling is expected before the third game of the 2030 World Series.
12
The ball hit the runner in the right leg after the runner was on the base. Clearly interference had no impact on the hit. The throw was late.
MLB Needs to change the rule-- If the first baseman can see the ball will be late, all he has to do is stick his glove in the path of the runner and hope the ump will call interference.
1
Awesome writing, a pleasure to read.
1
Michael Powers, you have written an absolutely hilarious column. Thanks for lightening our day.
1
The funniest part of this whole thing was watching A-Rod, opine that he should have been called safe. I guess being caught in a bush league attempt to cheat 15 years ago in losing to the Red Sox in the worst choke in baseball history still rankles.
2
There are 'rules' and then there is common sense. Some folks might call this the endearing quirkiness that makes baseball compelling (or other sports for that matter... see pass interference non -call in nfl playoffs).
To many, this seems tedious, arcane, and woefully inefficient plus certainly not entertaining.
Watching a high level of execution is a compelling reason to watch. A tedious review and debate over a dumb illogical rule and its misguided interpretation is not.
1
Wonderfully funny and true piece of writing. I laughed out loud several times.
"President Trump turned up and took a cold shower of boos which his memory has not yet alchemized into thunderous applause."
Mr. Powell, could you please write the lead new columns of the Times every day? Then I might enjoy reading political news again.
Thank you!
3
I'm still trying to get over the Red's Ed Armbrister call in the 1976 Series against the Red Sox.
1
As the photo shows, the problem was with the throw not the runner. Turner was right where he should have been but the throw was about a foot too far to the right. Now an obscure footnote at best
9
Thanks for this one. Very good read!
1
The call was correct. What is there any contreversy ? There is a box on the outside of first and third base does anyone understand what they are for ? If a runner taking a lead off third base took that lead inside the field of play and the catcher threw to third and hit the runner he(the runner) would be out. You are interfering with a fielder making a play, simple. It's not arcane and been a rule forever. The 1969 Mets were the beneficiaries of a bad call when a ball hit JC Martin in the arm, he was straddling the line, Turner was clearly inside the line. Perhaps we should first learn the rules before we criticize.
One of the few MLB rules that is impossible to justify. The runner has an absolute right to touch the bag, which is completely in fair territory. That rule must be amended, because it is not the last time we will see that situation.
No discussion regarding whether the call was right or wrong. From the naked eye, it looked to be the wrong call. Not sure where Turner was supposed to be. He’s running to first base. He was about to step on it. Where else was he supposed to go?
1
I ignore baseball. But Michael Powers is such a good writer, I couldn't put this down.
2
You say Guriel "positioned himself awkwardly" but from the photo at the top, and what I saw, he was where he should have been to take that throw. It's his job to put his glove in the way of the runner. That's how you get them out.
But to my mind, the most notable feature of this game was Strasburg. He was absolutely superb in the most critical game of his career.
He really wasn’t in the right position and the glove doesn’t need to be right in front of the runner. Also it was a bad throw.
3
There is no debate in baseball.
There is prancing preening and protending until the umpire grows weary.
Baseball is a sport where failing to get a hit 70% of the time for a career can earn you a place in the Hall of Fame.
Baseball is the only team sport that dosen't have a timed element.
Baseball is a sport where the three true outcomes aka base-on- balls, strikeouts and home runs eliminate 7 of 9 players from doing anything meaningful.
1
This is helpful: https://baseballrulesacademy.com/rule-week-runners-lane/
I'd like to congratulate the editor who wrote the sub-head for this article.
2
Rendon saved baseball from a major reckoning day. Had the 'Stros gone on to win this game, this play would have been up there with Merkle's Boner and George Brett's Pine Tar HR for all time questionable calls.
Maybe MLB should implement those double wide, half white half orange bases they use in Little League.
2
The inconsistency of enforcement of this rule makes it one that is ripe for revision.
Expecting a runner from the right-hander's batter box to run entirely in foul territory the last 45 feet is pretty unrealistic - the shortest distance from the batter's box is a straight line. I would wager that in 90% or more situations where a close play is anticipated, that right-handed batter isn't running fully in foul territory. Yes, interference happens rarely based on the angle of most throws, but only enforcing a rule when it applies in a tiny number of cases (and often not enforced even in egregious cases) invites irregular compliance by the runner and irregular enforcement by the umpire.
A ball thrown that strikes a runner on his body in foul territory, which is what happened in this case, is theoretically handled differently based on the course of the runner's last few steps. To me that doesn't make much sense. The runner should "own" foul territory in that situation, and a replay from a properly placed camera angle should be able to determine that.
Technically, the call was correct given the existing rule. But a non-call then would have been very reasonable too. In this instance, the "judgment" of the umpire was to make the call when it so often is never enforced that way. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
2
On that play, the base runner is supposed to run OUTSIDE the baseline in the alley that runs the last 30 feet. If the first baseman blocks that, then he is interfering. Running inside the baseline on a swinging bunt type play is absolutely baserunner interference.
Having said that, I personally went to bed after the 5th inning. How anybody can watching these boring games is way, way beyond me.
If the interference call agreed with the rules, the rules need to changed. That is clear, eh?
I think Martinez charged up his team following the call.
So, tonight: go, Nats!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/sports/costumed-members-of-the-national-symphony-orchestra-play-unique-rendition-of-baby-shark/2019/10/20/69501a70-047d-4c80-b0d5-eba4879d40e4_video.html
Should have consulted Trump to make the call.
1
I'm not sure if the call was right or not but at least it gave me the chance to look up the video of this classic Earl Weaver tirade: https://bit.ly/31UyNTm
Brilliant writing. Wry, acid commentary rivals our Cathal Kelly.
1
Much of the writing here is very good, but this part is not:
"the charms of the team’s closer, Roberto Osuna, who had beaten his girlfriend about in Canada."
There’s no need to use “about” here. I suppose it’s a sort of a cutesy 19th-century embellishment, or a very weak joke about Canadian accents.
Osuna beat his girlfriend, simply and unforgivably.
2
Very well written-
It may sound strange, but my feeling is that professional sports are dying.
What's killing them all, is the abandonment of "sportsmanship", and the arrival of the era of litigation. No doubt, the huge amounts of money that are at risk in each game, in each sport, is at least partially fueling this, but it is also the types of people who now own the teams. They are egotists incapable of accepting a bad call (against their team), and not accepting the fact that life can be unfair. No matter how "high tech" judgments become, there will always be controversial calls. Do we really need an electronic device to call balls and strikes? Whom shall we boo, when a machine calls a pitch wrong? Football has become almost unwatchable, as calls are determined by numerous reviews.
And last night's call at first base -- Wow!
I'm pretty sure that along with the crew on the field, and the crew back in New York, we'll soon have a crew of lawyers representing both teams somewhere on the field ( to save time ), and let the Litigation begin!
So what was the score?
"President Trump turned up and took a cold shower of boos which his memory has not yet alchemized into thunderous applause"
Yet another example of sports writers usually being the best writers at the newspaper--any newspaper.
1
Osuna beat his girlfriend "about"? Is that like roughing someone up or wrassling around or something?
How about just "beat his girlfriend" and be accurate or call it what it was: assault.
Outrageous.
2
How awful for you that your FREE seat was so far away from Homeplate. How really awful that the Times has a guy covering the World Series who doesn't like baseball and who clearly is clueless about baseball. For game 7 why not just stay in your hotel and give your ticket to someone who might actually enjoy the ballgame.
Having played baseball for 25 years, I think it should be noted that this arcane rule of the base path to first base is biased & unfair to right handed hitters! Righties have a longer path to first base than lefties. Lefties will tend to run in the lane, but righties have to cross home plate & then get in the lane. Not going to happen.
15
Really tough to feel sorry for right handed hitters. They have 90 feet plus to get their running straightened out.
2
I was waiting patiently for a clear, historical explanation of the rule and how a runner who stayed in the baseline could have violated it. Zero. All 'color' Nd no substance.
If decisions were only made based on predetermined standards and guidelines, we wouldn’t need judges. The quality and efficacy of those judgements aside, we DO have judges...to, uh - Judge. Nowadays a computer can spit out a rule. A trained monkey can follow it but it takes a wise judicious expert to the intent, harm and degree if infraction. That’s who Umpires are supposed yo be. Baseball Judges.
However last night, under the microscope of a national audience and the the pressure of a crucial game the umpire blew it. Technically (ever so barely, technically) it appears there was an infraction...technically. But to made that call, at that time, in that situation was a cop out. He flaked out and made a call that almost certainly was not made this season in perhaps thousands of opportunities.
As a baseball fan of fifty years I can say the only bad call as close to that was the Ed Ambrisfer / Carlton Fisk one in 1975. The Fisk one cost the Sox the game - thus one was a worse call. Simply horrible. And baseball wonders why it is dropping in popularity.
That call was absolutely correct. Not only was the contact trivial it hindered Armbrister more than Fisk who got to the ball in plenty of time to throw to second with enough time to get a DP if Fisk doesn’t throw the ball into CF. It would have been a blatant bailout of a mistake but now it’s just another Red Sox fan “if only” complaint. You’re right about the cop out last night but you can’t see how Fisk’s mistake warranted an ever bigger cop out
Unfortunately a rule that is seldom enforced so no wonder some fans are not aware of the required running lane and players often take advantage of that. If you have a rule it needs to be enforced consistently. Good example is the batter staying in the box during an at bat except after a foul. Again hardly ever enforced. Joe Torre, mandate enforcement or ditch the rule.
Bad rule! They need to get rid of it.
Also, there have been a lot of bad calls throughout the series (on both sides). My husband and I are baffled that these are some of the best Umpires!
Wouldn’t the problem have been less likely if first base was extended (as has been suggested) into foul territory so the runner can stay in the running lane (which is in foul territory) and not have to go back into fair territory to touch the base? Would also make collisions with first baseman less likely.
2
@Michael Dribin
They do that in some leagues ( softball ) - maybe you’ve seen safety bases - white in fair territory and red in foul. Your foot hits the red area.
Not a bad idea.
But really, since you just run through the base anyway you can just hit the right edge of the bag with your foot and no one gets interfered with or hurt.
So I don’t get all the arguments about “ veering” which wasn’t really the case in this incident anyway.
It would but foul balls could be more difficult to call. The first baseman did not hold the correct footing which would have resulted in runner on second. Instead this trivial contact gave the Astros a better result than if they played it correctly.
Paint the foul line over the extended first base. If the base was extended, no reason for runner to be in fair territory and if he is it makes the interference call make more sense.
The call is right either way, the evidence supports both outcomes. Until the rule says one player or another MUST do something a certain way the interpretation of the rule will be up for debate. The closest this rule would seem to have to such certainty is the definition of the base path and where the runner must stay in his run to the base. It does not seem to have anything definitive to say about how a fielder is supposed to field the ball.
Us squash players are used to this as let calls for interference are frequent enough that you know the result can never revolve around a single event, just or unjust.
There is a three foot lane on the foul side of first base that the runner has to stay in to avoid being called for interference if he hits the ball, or the ball hits him. He is clearly on the fair side of first when he hits the glove (and the ball). Doesn't matter where the first baseman is. The runner knew that and 'poached' on the fair side of first to hamper the throw to first. Runners are taught to run in foul territory, this one didn't.
He has to be in fair territory when he touches first base and he was less than a step away at the time.
1
That article took a really long time...for nothing to happen. Was hoping for at least some sort of explanation of why the call went the way it did.
7
@ridergk Sounds like typical baseball to me. Funny!
The ball was in foul territory when it hit Turner’s leg. Doesn’t matter where Turner had been, as long as one of his feet was landing on the baseline as he ran.
A good ump would have seen that the 1B called for an inside throw and got an outside throw that not only couldn’t have been handled, but would’ve been too late. Horrible call.
Great essay though. Thanks!
3
"It took a really long time for nothing to happen."
Baseball in a nutshell....
7
I know absolutely nothing about baseball or this World Series, but the article was a hoot. Thanks for the laugh.
10
>> “It took a really long time,” he noted, “for nothing to happen.”
Was he referring to last night's delay, or the sport of baseball in general?
4
Thanks for the wonderful writing!
2
Oh, wait.
Baseball still on? Goooo Yankees!
Oops, my bad, tuned out once we lost vs Houston.
2
Dude ran with his left foot on the grass for 80 plus feet. He interfered. The manager is a nut case. Who said there was no crying in baseball. The gnats were hysterical.
2
Dear Mr. Powell,
Saying that Osuna "beat his girlfriend about" sounds sort of, I don't know, playful? Certainly non-serious. I wouldn't know but it made me think of men in a group downplaying violence toward women. In fact Osuna took a plea deal. His ex, the mother of his child, seems to have the equivalent of a restraining order. She left the country with the child, according to reports. He was suspended for 75 days by the league. For me, this is really chilling stuff. I object to your word choice on it.
6
@Gingerine With all respect, you think "beat his girlfriend" is playful? And within the context of a paragraph in which I showered contempt on the Astros for their handling of this? To my eye, I could not have been more clear as to my take on it.
Michael
16
@Michael Powell Two questions: Why did you write "beat his girlfriend about" and then defend "beat his girlfriend"? I think Gingerine is suggesting that the unnecessary addition of "about" somehow softens the force of "beat." Whatever the case, to my ear it ain't idiomatic English.
7
@Mike That's a fair point. Frankly the "about" was a stray word and a product of writing late at night, no attempt at softening. If I'd noticed I'd have written 'about the room'. (Another reader suggested it was a play on a Canadian accent which could not be further from my intent). That said, the context in that paragraph was entirely tough on the Astros. I was not being 'playful' about anything. Best, Michael
2
Talmudic. Seriously? I had to look up this obscure word. Couldn't you have found something that more than 1% of the population (I'm totally guessing, but I hope you get the point) could understand?
Talmudic: So now you know ! Using a dictionary. Must have been awful...
5
Love your response.
One of the most interesting and enjoyable baseball articles (or is it a column?) I've ever read.
1
That was interference like my cat is the Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa.
1
So is he part of the caucuses?
1
Lousy throw to first base. Error on the pitcher.
5
"The game simply halted, lost in one of those Talmudic debates that enthrall hardball devotees and mystify everyone else."
Perfect description. I had to pick myself up off the floor. Thank you for that one!
17
@Adam Thank you!
4
I loved the detail on the search for Joe Torre. The author's writing reminds me of William Geist's great NYTimes columns.
4
Perfect. Something else for Americans to argue about endlessly. Folks, it's just a bunch of multimillionaires playing a child's game. Let it go.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
I hope but not quite pray the Nationals win as I HATE THE ASTROS for beating my N.Y. Yanks! :-(
1
I haven’ t followed baseball in years but this article could get me back. It was so well written and amusing that I could imagine being there. More writing like this please.
3
"The umpires tried to raise Joe Torre, the Hall of Famer who moonlights as chief baseball officer."
Gosh - what an amazing and entertaining article - EVER!
This is the best sports story I've read in awhile. I'm still laughing and smiling.
Cannot wait to watch Game 7 tonight and read Michael Powell's recap tomorrow. I'm sure his article will have plenty of snappy spins and hearty belly laughs.
Go Nats!!!
5
REALITY; if the runner ran down the base path which is between the white lines the first baseman would have been able to catch the ball i.e. interference was the correct call
2
When I was growing up in the 50’s right handed fielders (with glove on their left hand) like this Houston fellow were discouraged from playing 1st base for reasons made obvious in the playback of this play. The right-handed 1st baseman looks completely at sea while he awkwardly jabs for the throw and basically interferes with the runner who has reached the bag. That Houston fielder needed a smarter little league coach.
3
I have loathed reply since day one. What a colossal bore! Just what baseball needs: more extended periods of time with everyone standing around doing nothing.
If only there was a trained, experienced professional standing a few feet away from the play who could tell us at once whether the player is safe or out.
1
A simple matter: If you're an Astro fan it was a great call; to Nat fans it was robbery. Fortunately the issue became moot when the Nats won the game. If the Astros had won, the integrity of the game would have been severely damaged.
1
TV commentator and former pitcher John Smoltz cleared up this controversy for me when he said, "In situations like this, when it looks like the runner will beat the throw, they teach you to throw at the runner and hope you get the interference call."
14
So much for right handed first basemen.
1
Whooooooaaa wait a minute ... I thought there WAS no review, and that the delay was due the umps checking with NY to see if the Nats could protest. I was confused then. I’m even more confused now. The only thing that’s clear was that that was a TERRIBLE CALL.
3
One of the delayed gratifications of this wonderful sport is reading pieces like this one by Mr. Powell. Well written, amusing and a more-than-welcome diversion from the miasma of politics reported on the front pages of this paper.
Having said that, it was clearly a bad call by the ump. Look at the position of Yuri Gurriel's glove as he takes the throw. It seems pretty much in the middle of the base and not obviously to the inside would be expected if Turner was clearly out of the base path.
GO EXPOS...errr NATS!
1
Horrendous call. First baseman’s awkward placement of his glove blocking the runners path caused the mishap. No way this was runners interference.
3
There were only two problems with this review. First, it took far too long. Second, they got the call wrong. Other than that it was perfect. In fact, this is the issue with far too many replay reviews. There is no point in having them if the error rate is high. In this case Turner should have been running to the right of the line, but still, he was beyond the first baseman, and his foot on the bag by before the ball even could have been caught, meaning he was safe. The first baseman's glove hit him in the back (if it hit him at all).
2
There was nothing controversial about this call. Had the first baseman perhaps lined up with his foot on the right inside corner of the bag, one might argue that he was setting up an interference call. But his foot was on the left inside corner, leaving plenty of room for the runner. The umpire lined up exactly where he should have, behind home plate and looking up the line. Perhaps the fielder (the pitcher, mind you, not a regular infielder) purposely threw the ball at the runner, as the announcer said, but perhaps not, as it was a tough throw in any case, but there is no way to know. Runners, however, know they're being watched for this, and they certainly have more control over what they're doing -- after all, they have 90 feet to figure out where they're running to -- than a pitcher who is charging in, turning and throwing in a sidewinder fashion. It was appropriate for the ump to make this call.
1
This article brought a smile. The descriptions an allusions are solid and fun. Well written. This is an example of great journalism. Thank you Michael Powell.
2
I noticed that from Game 4 the Astros pitchers were getting the benefit of a wider strike zone, particularly on the outside. And the strike zone shrank back to normal for the Nationals pitchers, Sánchez in particular. It could be a coincidence, but those calls were messing up the Nationals hitters and irritating their pitchers. And now this.
I would like to believe in the cleanliness of the sport that I practiced as a youngster, without great success I have to admit.
5
First thing visible to me on the replay was home plate umpire Sam Holbrook, immediately on seeing the ball in play, aligning himself in the baseline for a dead-center view, from behind baserunner Turner, of the catch at first base. Holbrook is senior enough to have made that call enough times in his career to know the difference between interference and not. He was in the best position to see first baseman Gurriel play the ball not the runner and he made the right call.
2
I’m glad the D.C. team won anyway. I was ambivalent about this series since neither the Yankees or Red Sox are involved, but love the fans who gave what’s-his-name the Bronx cheers and the “lock him up” chant. So now I’m rooting for The Nationals!
24
As for the legality of the play and the call, I suggest that everyone google "Baseball Rules running to first base". There are multiple explanations, including many videos, that explain that the runner, for at least the last half of the first base distance, stay in the running lane, clearly remarked in foul territory. Turner ran the entire way in fair territory, knowing that on his swinging bunt there could be a play at first base. The rule allows the runners last step to be at the level of the base so he can touch it. As far as I can see, Turner was called out correctly. That it took so long for the umps to make the call was disappointing.
Just what baseball needs, a dubious and unnecessary call that is so consequential in a world series that takes 10 minutes to review.
People always say baseball games go by too fast.
4
Don't get it. The replay shows no deviation from the base path, straight run. Normally the first baseman would have held on to the ball for the out but he didn't. He dropped it because the baserunner ran into him as he ran to the base. So the question is what would the baserunner have to do to avoid "interference?" Run out of the base path? Bad call.
3
@mixietop The runner needs to be in the "running lane" which for the last half of the first base line is clearly marked by a line that leads the runner in foul territory. It's in the rules. By running in fair territory down the first base line he is out of the correct baseline. Go to baseball rules running to first base on google.
2
It is not lost on me that the same umpire who made the call last night made the "outfield fly" rule determination against the Braves. While he has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the rules and their literal interpretations, twice he has stretched the rules beyond their limits and spat in the face of common sense and the spirit of the rules. In both instances, he has intentionally made HIMSELF the story (I cannot imagine the Astros howling if Turner had been ruled safe nor would the Cardinals have protested if the runners had advanced on the outfield fly). I can think of no worse criticism of any official in sports than that.
3
I love the drama of playoff baseball, there's so much at stake and my home team has a chance to do something historic. With my ice hockey fan hat on, the drama can't conceal the appearance that it's a bunch of guys standing around most of the time.
Most first basemen I've watched in the past 30 years have always made the catch leaning towards the mound. Ostensibly, to be able to catch it sooner. Throwing a ball at a runner would be kind of cool, adding a dodgeball-type feel to this lumbering prehistoric game. I could hear septuagenarians in bucket hats with chin straps slap away dust off of that rulebook with brushes like it's the holy grail.
1
Original rules required hitting the runner with the ball if not tagged out. One of the old versions, I think the Massachusetts version.
Thank goodness I missed the game (well, pretty much all baseball games). I don't really care about either team but I get so disgusted to see games decided, or potentially decided, by bad calls or "good" calls on bad rules. I barely watch the NFL anymore and I'm even a fan of that league, or was.
In kids softball they have two first bases next to each other, one for the runner and one for the first baseman... perhaps the majors need the same.
5
I watched zero baseball games this season.
I HAVE seen ALMOST every post-season game.
Why?
As my mother would say when she didn't want to answer a question: "That's why!"
What would Larry David Say?
1
Dear Mr. Powell,
Lovely writing and wry humor! You are keeping the tradition of great sports reporting alive at the NYT! Thanks!
7
Baseball has rules. He interfered.
Rule 6.05 (k)
In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Rule 6.05(k)
Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter- runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.
1
BUT, he was in his last step to the bag when called for interference. He did not interfere running on the inside side of the line before that last step. He would have caused the same problem if he ran in the lane before taking the same last step.
2
I'm a National League guy (Braves), but why have rules? (No, they are not made to be broken, except perhaps in the Fine Arts)
However, Turner was correctly called out for interference--he was out of the baseline. It should not have taken anywhere near as long as it did
"God, I love baseball"
Roy Hobbs, "The Natural"
1
I think you got uracil caught in your double helix because he had to be in the position he was at the time he was butting the base and interference is not the same as contact.
Some folic acid might help:-)
I love baseball controversies and resulting video replays. We argued about whether he was or was not interfering with the play for 15 minutes. Had a great time.
7
In many leagues, there is a "runner's base" right up beside and next to first base. Sometimes it's painted orange to distinguish it from first base. The purpose is to prevent collisions with the rummer and first baseman and to avoid controversies like what happened yesterday. Maybe MLB should experiment with this idea.
5
Excellent call by the umpires.
Often this is called when the ball hits the offensive player running out of the lane.
Whether it’s a bad throw or not is inconsequential.
If Turner was foul territory the ball would have been caught and a safe or out call would have been made. Because of his position he interfered with the fielder, hence the call.
I used to teach 12 year old Little Leaguers about the running lane so Turner with years of experience had no business running where he did on that type of play.
As for the comments that everyone runs there;
If there’s no play the runner can run wherever.
The analogy being you can go way off the baseline rounding the bases as long as you’re not avoiding a tag.
Full disclosure:
As a volunteer umpire I have called this the same way - same reaction from the penalized team/fans as well.
3
Disagree. When the ball hit him, he was entirely within the baseline. It does not matter under the rules that he veered earlier because he had corrected that by the time of the incident. It was a terrible call, both equitably and technically, and I am glad it didn’t matter in the end.
7
@Michael
Don’t know what you mean by “within the baseline”.
Where he had to be running was foul territory to the right of the baseline ( the running lane).
The video I’m watching shows he was never over there.
If the ball did contact him it looks to me it was because he interfered with the fielder’s glove not allowing the catch to be made.
The umpire rang him up because of that.
It’s only controversial because just about any obstruction/ interference type call is controversial because they just don’t happen that often.
Glad to be of help.
If he stayed in foul territory he misses the bag. He has the right to go for the bag with his last step. He was in his last step to the bag
1
This should have been scored "E-1", with Gomes at 3rd, Turner at 2nd, and no outs. The throw clearly was not good, thrown in a way that the first baseman Gurriel was handcuffed, and in fact interfered with the runner.
I'm glad it didn't matter in the scheme of things for Game 6, and hope that it further charges up the Nationals in Game 7 tonight.
14
Mr. Powell says in his column that the runner ran outside the base line. I have watched the replay closely and don’t see that at all.
7
Turner actually ran inside (to the left) of the baseline. That in itself was sufficient to be called out. The runner must run between the two lines for the last 45 feet, except for the last stride when he is reaching the base.
2
Not a comment about the rules, but rather baseball fundamentals. Look at the picture. If Guriel has used proper 1st base technique, stepping out to catch the ball with his glove side foot, there would have been no call and Turner likely would have been out by a step or two.
6
I am a baseball fan of some 50 years.
But some of these rules require a PhD in baseball - well, I don't have that.
As an Astros fan, I was glad Turner was called out.
On another matter - it seems some baseball writers want controversy during the World Series when none exists.
That incident with a young Astros manager - way way blown out of proportion. And I get to differ with Astros management.
As to booing - it can happen only in DC. In Houston, there would have been a standing ovation interspersed with booing from the Nats fans - but completely drowned out.
I think no baseball fan would think these two items marred this Series. I wish writers would drop these topics and move on.
Finally, this sentence caught my attention :
"...to raise Joe Torre, the Hall of Famer who moonlights as chief baseball officer..."
At the bucks, MLB pays Joe - I would hardly call it moonlighting.
But if it is - I ask for just less than 1% to moonlight like he does.
2
The umpires didn't need to follow the Talmud, they just needed to follow the physicians motto of "first, do not harm". If they had done so, the call would have been safe.
7
I am a baseball fan of some 50 years.
But some of these rules require a PhD in baseball - well, I don't have that.
As an Astros fan, I was glad Turner was called out.
On another matter - it seems some baseball writers want controversy during the World Series when none exists.
That incident with a young Astros manager - way way blown out of proportion. And I get to differ with Astros management.
As to booing - it can happen only in DC. In Houston, there would have been a standing ovation interspersed with booing from the Nats fans - but completely drowned out.
I think no baseball fan would think these two items marred this Series. I wish writers would drop these topics and move on.
Finally, this sentence caught my attention :
"...to raise Joe Torre, the Hall of Famer who moonlights as chief baseball officer..."
At the bucks, MLB pays Joe - I would hardly call it moonlighting.
But if it is - I ask for just less than 1% to moonlight like he does.
I am a baseball fan of some 50 years.
But some of these rules require a PhD in baseball - well, I don't have that.
As an Astros fan, I was glad Turner was called out.
On another matter - it seems some baseball writers want controversy during the World Series when none exists.
That incident with a young Astros manager - way way blown out of proportion. And I get to differ with Astros management.
As to booing - it can happen only in DC. In Houston, there would have been a standing ovation interspersed with booing from the Nats fans - but completely drowned out.
I think no baseball fan would think these two items marred this Series. I wish writers would drop these topics and move on.
Finally, this sentence caught my attention :
"...to raise Joe Torre, the Hall of Famer who moonlights as chief baseball officer..."
At the bucks, MLB pays Joe - I would hardly call it moonlighting.
But if it is - I ask for just less than 1% to moonlight like he does.
I haven’t read most of the comments but I believe it should have been a no call. It is clear that the runner was almost on the base when the collision occurred. I think Houston is a fundamental great team. The fielder always has the right if way in a batted ball but once it’s field the runner has more privileges.
However, interference implies that the fielders has no alternative. That was clearly not true. The pitcher threw the ball to foul territory when no one was near foul territory where he could have and should have thrown the ball and the first baseman should have had his right foot on first bas and he could have grabbed that throw without contact and 3 feet closer to home.
Sorry interference should be blatant and not an excuse for a bad(not terrible) play.
9
The rules are quite clear. (A) you can't debate a judgement call, (B) you have to run in the box if there is a play at first. Rule 5.09(a)(11):
In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
Nothing to discuss or debate except whether or not the rule should be changed.
6
Not sure what you’re asserting. I think the problem lies in the four words that read “in doing so interferes.”
“In doing so” the runner did not interfere. The play was at the bag and at that time the runner was exactly where he has a right to be.
18
I have seen many argue that most runners run the same path Turner took. That just means that most runners take a risk of being called out for interference. The rules are clear - runners should run in their lane. It is a step slower, so runners choose to take a risk. Last night Turner paid the price.
4
In full disclosure I live in DC and I'm a Nationals fan.
That said, the 'runner interference' call was terrible. Turner ran down the first base line, tagged the base, and avoided contact with Gurriel to the maximum extent humbly possible.
The issue at hand, and the much bigger point of all of this is that the umpires have become a very obvious detriment to the game in general, and both the Astros and the Nationals in this World Series.
Many teams this season and post-season have suffered from absolutely terrible calls that have changed the momentum of plays and at-bats. While some nostalgic fans may like the independent variable the umpires add, the umpires by and large will not be missed when the day finally comes.
That day will benefit the game, the players, and the fans.
5
Michael, you either like baseball and all it’s quirks or you don’t. They call us seam heads these days, but I can recall great discussions, i.e. arguments with my dad 50-60 years ago about the game. He would have loved the controversy surrounding this play last night, although he never like the fact that baseball’s premier event was played at night.
1
Far worse than that call are the ball/strike calls all series. The plate umpire in game 1 was good, but after that there were so many bad calls.
Plate umpire is a job that needs to be automated. A robot can get the call right instantly. It's much more fair to the players, and fans would be happier knowing they won or lost on an even playing field.
8
@Bill We might get automated ball/strike calls soon. The Atlantic League (independent baseball league) is in the middle of a 3 year experiment (funded by MLB) to use the Trackman radar system to call balls and strikes for all Atlantic League games. Check swings, foul tips, and hit batters are still called by a human umpire. So far, there have been fewer arguments with the umpires (but it still happens).
One of the most interesting baseball games that I've seen---and I've see a lot of them. Better yet is the way that it is captured in the NYT today. Thanks!
3
I thought it was a missed call, that there was a throwing error. But the umpire was doing the best he could and nobody's perfect.The Nationals and the Astros are really good teams and maybe we'll see a well-played nail-biter tonight.
5
Maybe I just live in that 'obscure status quo' but I say to all of those 'hoarse-croaking' wisecrackers who think "nothing happens in baseball", the best sportswriting is, in fact, about baseball.
15
“It took a long time for nothing to happen.”
Because... baseball.
12
Worst. Call. Ever.
Not even close to interference (and I'm not a Natls fan)
12
‘Wanna a distilled version?
“...ball don’t lie”
1
Joe Torre could have saved MLB a lot of grief by just admitting that the umps got the call wrong. Umpiring is a human endeavor and sometimes they get the call wrong, as every baseball fans understands. It only became an issue when they comically refused to admit their error. You know what they say: The cover-up is always worse than the crime.
11
Nice column, but although it seems to suggest otherwise, the series has not been a circus. Maybe a bit of a sideshow now and then, but not silly, and lots of good action.
Also...Yeah Nats!
6
Don't think call/no call would have mattered, though I agree it was a good call. The Nats had the hoodoo on last night and the Astros were doomed. Proof you ask?
Just watch poor Altuve's face after that strikeout. If there were a hole available, he would have crawled into it.
StrasBurg was singing Screaming Joe Hawkins for sure last night.
"I put a spell on you..."
Fitting, this close to All Hallows' Eve
2
@Jack That would be Screamin' Jay Hawkins. Jay being the diminutive of Jalacy
Good column, Michael, but when you stated "It’s worth recalling that baseball tough guys got exercised back in 2012," you lost me. Did you mean to say "excoriated" (which would make sense) or perhaps "exorcised" (which wouldn't unless "driven out" was what you were going for)?
2
Exercised is correct.
While there are numerous definitions depending on context (exercise freedom of speech, exercise judgment.
exercise the duties of one's office, exercise an influence on someone), the most apt one in this case is to worry or make uneasy; as in to be much exercised about one's health.
@James Thanks, James, for the clarification. I was unaware of such usage of "exercise." I guess I should have researched it.
@joel It should have been "...guys got exercised ABOUT...,
which means to be upset or agitated about something.
That play is akin to taking a dive in soccer/football. Gurriel essentially drew a foul via embellishment, which is legal no matter how much I or anyone else hates it. If he wanted to make a play, he would have planted his right foot on the bag and stretched for the catch. Instead, he wanted to make a foul, so he plants his gloveside foot on the bag and keeps his mitt on on the first base line. Some call it smart, I call it dirty pool. The umps' call certainly doesn't reflect the spirit of the rule.
100
@Buck Biro It is worth noting that Gurriel failed to give the pitcher a target, away from the baserunner, the kind of move you learn in Little League. It would, however, have been all too clever on his part if he choreographed the interference. After all, had he placed his right foot on first base, he would have also been forced to turn his back to the throw, which was coming from the home plate side of the third base line. That would have been far too risky.
9
@Buck Biro
Turner was not in the designated running lane and no first baseman should have to risk serious wrist injury as a result. Out was the correct call.
19
Disagree. The first baseman had the wrong foot on the base and the throw was not on target. Either one of those would have gotten an out. Interference shouldn’t be a bail out call.
22
People, chill out. One of the crazy wonderful things about baseball is that while the runner is supposed to remain in foul territory, he also has to be in fair territory in order to touch first base. There is simply no way for these two imperatives not to collide. Accordingly, the rules impose a "right of way" standard to which all must adhere. That standard dictates that the fielder's right to catch the thrown ball takes precedence over the runner's right to touch the base. That's just how it is. If the runner's progress interferes with the fielder's attempt to catch the thrown ball, the runner is out.
It's the same with a batted ball in fair territory. In that case, the "right of way" belongs to the fielder trying to field the batted ball, and the runner must yield, even if that means forgoing the direct path to the base he is trying to reach. If the two collide, the runner is out.
The play at first base in last night's game was close, but we are not unfamiliar with close plays in sports. In this case, the umpire got it right. If Trea Turner had been running inside the three-foot lane, he would not have been called out, even if that prevented the fielder from catching the ball, because the runner has the right of way within the three-foot lane. In fair territory, the fielder has the right of way.
3
Most of the time the runner has the right of way after a ball has had the chance to be fielded in fair territory and keeping to that standard is simple.
2
I disagree with the support for the umpire. If a left handed batter breaks out of the batters box he/she is usually outside the batters box with the first step. If a player is standing "up in the box" the players first step is on the field side of the base line. Trea Turner ran up the inside of the line out of the box and then1/2 way up got into the base line area, and firmly planted his foot in the middle of the bag. Guriell was in an "awkward" position because the throw was late and off line. No way is that interference. It was a bad play by the Astros made into a good play by the umpire.
26
Agreed.
Absolutely the best sports article I have read in a very long time, and I read an awful lot of them. Intelligent, funny, and fun to read. Great job.
14
Great column. So well written, descriptive, and entertaining!
5
Note from the picture that Yuli Gurriel misplayed the ball. As a right handed player, with the throw coming from roughly 3rd base, and with the play obviously close, he should have his right foot on the bag stretching towards the thrower as far as possible, with his glove on a straight line even further out in the direction of where the throw was coming from.
If he had played the ball correctly there would have been no contact whatsoever with the runner, and he would have optimized the likelihood of the runner being out because he would have caught the ball further out from 1st base.
Even with a throw that was off line, he would have caught the ball without interfering with the runner.
Instead he has his left foot on the bag which means he has to catch the slightly errant throw closer to the base and in the runner's path.
5
Better throw to first and Turner beats the throw with a single. Interference was called because of a bad throw not Turner's position. Poor rule that should be changed and/or be reviewable.
8
Umpire made a bad judgement call into a tight WS game 6. Errant throw was the cause, not running down the baseline.
All moot as the Nationals went on to win.
8
It was a terrible throw that should not have been close to the base runner. Had the catcher fielded and thrown the ball from near the plate, it probably would have been interference because the runner would have blocked his throw. Here that was not the case; no interference.
8
The patch to the left is worn out by runners.
5
Anthony Rendon saved everyone’s bacon with one swing. Just imagine if this had remained a one run game; if the Astros had come from behind to win; and the 2019 World Series — the culmination of an entire season of play — likely had been decided with one utterly ludicrous umpire’s call. The legitimacy of the entire endeavor would have been called into serious question.
It’s bad enough the legitimacy of our government is under attack from the White House. God knows we need a legitimate national pastime to fall back on, now more than ever.
8
It's part of the mystery of baseball, like the infield fly rule...
@Jack be Quick The infield fly rule is not mysterious. It prevents lots of two-bit double- and triple-plays.
3
@Bill
Too bad the umps a few WS ago didn't know the infield fly rule.
1
You say he ran out of the baseline. And you say you were 440 feet from home. How's that again?
Great article. Reminds me of the days when we had several beat writers and columnists scattered across the land who could spoil us with their baseball writings.
3
For all of the attacks on the NYT, earned or otherwise, there's still great writing as demonstrated here by Mr. Powell.
4
Ever wonder why first basemen are usually left handed?
1
@Frank Knarf because there's no other place to put a left handed infielder
It was proof that human activities require human judging.
It was a great (gutsy) call- 100% accurate too.
22
No.
No.
Gutsy to make a wrong call in favor of the home fans?
Bad throw. Bad play by 1B. Bad call to ignore that. Once the ball was fielded there was no chance of interference outside a blatant purposeful act by the batter-runner. Umps should not make the game about themselves just like announcers. Smoltz is great.
5
@Robert you are entitled to your opinion....not your own facts.
@Wayne Agree. Agree.
I want to know what the crew chief ump said to Martinez. We saw him smirk, we saw him point, and we saw him tight lipped, right before Martinez went ballistic. I thought Angel Hernandez owned the franchise on umpire self-aggrandizement.
Such is what makes baseball great, amusing and educational.
Ya gotta love it...
32
@HapinOregon
You are so right.
Baseball is the crown jewel of Autumn. My favorite time of year and my favorite sport. What's there to NOT love about baseball, especially the World Series.
GO NATS!!!
2
I'm still baffled by the call. I do not see how ANYONE could have reached first without "interfering" the way Gurriel's arm was completely blocking the base. Turner's left foot, his inside foot hit the very center of the bag, not the inside edge. It is simply impossible for anyone to have reached first, and the runner has as much right to the base as the fielder.
I don't blame Gurriel--he was just doing what he could to catch a bad throw. But the umps, upon looking at the replay, should have instantly ruled Turner safe. Luckily, it doesn't appear to have affected the outcome as it was followed with a 2-run homer. How they couldn't find Joe Torre when Trea Turner was saying "There he is!" is even more bizarre.
Bad call. Dreadful call, but it could have been worse--changing the outcome of the game.
154
@Dadof2 - Ya see that parallel line outside the foul line? The one that extends from about halfway down the foul line to (almost) first base? The runner HAS to stay between those two lines, or he's out. Correct call.
6
@Dadof2
Check the replay from the home plate angle. Turner was planting his left foot on the infield grass with every step. (Actually, only half of his foot, but I guess you'd think that means he was only "sort of" out of the base path.)
6
@Dadof2 There was a similar controversy in game four of the 1969 WS, the NY Mets "Miracle" Year. Pinch hitter JC Martin rolled a bunt down the first base line. The catcher's throw hit him and bounced away. The Mets went on win the game and the Series. Replays similarly showed Martin running down the line instead of in the designated running lane. He, too, should have been called out but wasn't. (No video appeals in those days.)
BTW, I'm rooting for the Nationals--but the rule is the rule. Good call.
4
If they superimposed every batter's path who was running hard to first, over Turner's path, you would find little difference. Bad call. It was an off target throw. Turner was running directly over the base as all the runners do. Bad call.
128
@deggy24
That is correct and most runners are, in fact, risking an interference call. The reality is, they get away with it because rarely, does the throw come from that section of the infield (like rolling through a stop sign unnoticed) and warrant a call. When one hits (or bunts) a "dribbler" down the third base line or a catcher dropped strike three, it is in the runner's interest to take extra care to run in the "lane" to avoid being caught up in a choreographed interference. One available tactic (I'm not endorsing it) to the fielder is to simply throw the ball and hit the runner in the back.
6
Couple of observations about what happened, from a person who follows baseball closely:
It was the sweetest thing to watch Anthony Rendon hit a home run right after all that controversy. Nothing is better in baseball than watching an umpire's questionable call immediately rendered a moot point.
It was surreal and weird to watch Joe Torre, of all people, going on TV to argue that Turner was out because of interference with the fielder's glove.
It was stranger still to immediately after watch Alex Rodriguez disagree with what his former Yankee manager had concluded. I could only guess that A-Rod knew better than anybody else when a runner deserves to be called out for interfering with a fielder's glove (Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS against the Red Sox and Bronson Arroyo, remember that?).
12
@AR the ARod slap. In Trumpian fashion ARod described it as a beautiful play at the time. The amazing thing about the play was that this was long before replay and manager challenges were instituted. But there was the much maligned Joe West, crew chief that night, getting his fellow umps together to get the call right. Karma was on the Sox side that year and justifiably so after the decades of torture we fans of the team endured.
3
Looking at the play at first base it appears, more, that the first baseman is interfering with Turner's access to the bag. Turner was taking a direct line to the middle of the base. The glove was placed in Turner's way and he collided with it. As an observation....looking at the chalk line from home to 1st it could be seen that the chalk was little (if any) disturbed after 6 innings. The path that Turner took to 1st is the path that the majority, if not all, of runners take in any game. Turner did not purposely interfere with the throw....contrary to the false equivalence some commentators have used with respect to past incidents when a judgement call of interference has been made. Last night one of the commentators (Smoltz?) said that players are coached to throw at the runner to possibly get a similar judgement call. The game 6 incident and other similar incidents alluded to in commentary really begs review of the rules by MLB.
9
This was one the best and most enjoyable columns – baseball or not – I've read in a very long time. A very nice piece of work Michael Powell, it made my day. Thanks.
22
This was a blown call.
Should Turner have been called out for running outside of the baseline? Sure, if the rule would be consistently applied. It is not. We all see this type of running when a bunt is put down on the first base line, especially if the catcher is going to play it as it makes the throw from the catcher much harder. I can't remember when the last time an umpire called a runner out for this, so I cannot accept this as the reason it was called.
Should Turner have been called out because he clipped the first baseman's glove? No. Gurriel was not in a proper position to catch this ball, he was in the worst possible spot, right in the path of the runner. The contact was inevitable due to Gurriel's body positioning which was pretty poor. One could make an argument that he was actually baiting Turner, but that we will never know. This really cannot be the reason that Turner was called out.
This was a blown call and blown moment. The human factor is alive and well int he game and it is better for it. Apply the running rule in a consistent fashion and it would be acceptable, but it isn't. Blown call.
14
I went straight to bed after MC Mayans last night and, like most rational Americans, wasn't even aware that this had happened before turning on my car radio this morning.
Having now seen the play, I'm stunned: This was disputed? It's so clearly interference that even an NFL replay official would have gotten it right.
If the Astros had a left-handed first baseman, as God intended, this fiasco wouldn't have happened. the play would have been a very close call about the base runner safe/out, and that would have been legit. The ump used up too much time on what should have been an easy call. The right to the base belongs to the runner, especially when the throw is poor. The base path stuff is like the swipe tag at second base. Let 'em play ball.
14
Good to see baseball's rule book still finds new ways to surprise after all these years. Reminiscent of another of America's favourite pastimes, arguing over the proper interpretation of every last dot and tittle in the US Constitution.
2
I never would have guessed that the author and comments would disagree with the umpires. That’s so surprising. Why even have rules? Just let the umpires decide what is fair. Sounds like many of my friends constitutional analysis.
Sorry, but the Umpire was correct. The runner was outside the 3-foot running lane and in fair territory the whole time. The rule states that when the batter-runner runs outside the land and, in the opinion of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, interference shall be called.
The runner was outside that lane and did interfere with the fielder taking the throw. Easy call, even if people didn't like it or don't understand the rule.
1
@Clayridge I'd like to see the amount of times this umpire called that exact same violation in every single game he's ever worked. I'll give you all the money I have if he has only called it a low percentage of times vs how many times players have violated that rule under his watch.
It was a "hero" call, the umpire wanted to have a say in the game. This happens all the time in the NBA.
Call it for what it is, sure it was the right call, but WHY did it make it TONIGHT and not 90% of the other times he's witnessed it.
1
In any case, maybe the delay of game helped the Nationals because it took the pitcher out of his rhythm. That might have led to the home run.
1
Ironic but true. Any delay in the psychology would impact the pitcher focus. Bit like the impeachment will help Republicans.
1
Runner safe. No interference. Easy Call.
The runner has a right to make a DIRECT-STRIDE to first base.
The umpire did not need to inject himself into the proceedings - or to reward an errant (and late) throw. But upon seeing the glove being dislodged through contact, a better case could have been made for obstruction - altho, as a professional umpire myself, I would've laid-off that call as well.
46
Look at the bald patch to the left that all runners used. And maybe the baseman interfered with the runner.
9
@Peter Ryan Yes! The fact that we're all arguing over this means this rarely gets called but here we are in a do or die game, he makes the call that is so rare that everyone is arguing over it.
1
Matt Harvey had something to do
with his over-pitching. He publically attacked the possibility of the Mets using a six pitcher rotation. Also, during that season, he often insisted upon staying in the game when the Mets wanted to take him out.
2
@Bill Absolutely correct. There are many that think that him re-inserting himself in the game in the ninth-inning after he was pulled cost the Mets that game and the World Series.
I can’t help but think of the thousands of Little League players watching the game when the interference call was made.
2
Sure took a long time for the umps to realize that this was a "judgment call" immune to replay. Inexcusable.
You don't think the runner should get preference here? Then make a better throw.
The fix is to make this situation, which is rare, reviewable. In this case, Turner (the runner) should have been deemed safe, as he was reasonably within the running lanes and the defensive team should not be rewarded for making a poorly-targeted throw to first base.
76
@Tim Clark
Agreed about possible need for rule change.
However, Turner was not "reasonably within the running lanes." His left foot landed on infield grass each stride until he veered slightly at the end, when the interference occurred. "Reasonably within the running lanes" is in the dirt lane.
10
@John
How else was he supposed to be able to touch the base? The only way for that to happen was either exactly what he did or perhaps slide ito first base? It was a fluke and I agree he should have been safe.
Having said that, I agree it was a judgment call and should not have been reviewed.
7
@Tim Clark I thought the delay was because the consensus was that it was the wrong call and they were looking for a higher authority who would approve them overturning it. But I guess the rule, as Torre later said, is that it's a judgment call and those are not reviewable. End of story.
1
I agree with the umps' call. Turner interfered by both running too far inside during the last half of the run, and he as a result did not give the first baseman a fair chance at catching the ball. He may also have hit the glove or the first baseman's arm or body, but that's a little less clear. But the call was correct. If he had not been in this awkward place for the baseman, the ball could have easily been caught - but in fact the runner would have been safe. The throw was late.
3
@John Xavier III I think I agree. It is right on the borderline - it could not be more borderline. And I don't think Turner did anything with his body, like a Reggie Jackson hip sway, to interfere. But the ball probably would have been caught if Turner had not run into his glove (although Gurriel had a pretty awkward body position to try to catch it). Turner was on the border of the baseline, which at that point is invisible so it's a judgment call there. Not clearly out of it, but on the border.
Then again, if the call had not been made I could see understanding that as well. It was a true judgment call.
@John Xavier III how was he supposed to step on the bag?
1
@John Xavier III how many other times has this umpire enforce this rule? That should tell you if it was a bad call or not.
1
Almost all right handed batters are guilty of the same running infraction when going to first base, watch and see, and for umpires to call them on it is exceedingly rare, maybe every 50 years.
25
@Ken
Ken, I was thinking the same thing, but I heard a pundit on our local sport network (actually someone who played Major League Baseball) saying that the rule allows 45 feet (halfway to first base) for a batter/runner to respect the running corridor.
Maybe other commenters can confirm this.
@Ken
The momentum of right handed batters will move their bodies toward left after they swing and straight path toward the bag will force them to touch the grass unless they detour to the right.
One of the best pieces of sports writing I've read in awhile. Thank you!
94
@Greg Forge One particular reportorial gem in this account: "Trump turned up and took a cold shower of boos which his memory has not yet alchemized into thunderous applause..."
This is great, entertaining sports writing!
1
Easy fix. As in Softball, add a safety bag in the safety lane, adjacent to the base in foul ground. Runner has to stay in the safety lane without having to cross the bag in fair territory. Removes the interference “judgement” burden. Contact between the runner and the fielder in fair territory can be considered interference.
11
@Tapokata - and a keg at third base. Natty Light.
3
Great article but I am still lost. What was Turner's actual crime ? was it running inside the white line and then out or the opposite of running out of it and then in ? Was it bumping into a glove that was extended into his path ? Was it getting hit in the back of the knee with the ball ? What action would have made this base run legal ?
23
@Buoy Duncan
On the first base side there is a runner's track that runs parallel to the foul line and is itself in foul ground.
A batter is supposed to stay in there until the last step, when he pretty much has to go left since the bag is in fair territory.
I agree with the ump's call.
18
@Plennie Wingo Rewatch the game, watch as much baseball as you can and let us know how many times runners take the same exact path Turner did, and how many of them got called for it, especially by this umpire.
Will you still agree with this ump's call if he rarely calls this kind of play? Will you still agree with the call if nobody really calls this out?
2
Salvador Dali goes to a baseball game!
Beautiful word painting Michael.
I watched this and I would only add that the three umpires on the headsets seemed like they were in a comedy skit given the fact that a base-running interference call is actually - by rule - not reviewable.
Which begs this question - Who were they talking to and what was being said to them because they were saying nothing at all?
Because Joe Torre was slumped down in a filed box 15 feet away at the game, as Tres Turner kept screaming from the dugout.
"He's right there! He's right there! Ask him!" Turner bellowed.
I got a snack as the three mute umpires held the game up long enough to mess with the Houston relief pitcher's routine and Rendon went bridge off him shortly thereafter to open up the lead.
I like to think the umps had nobody on the other end of the line and they were stood there pretending to be listening to somebody in New York so they could let enough time pass allowing them to somehow possibly escape the gravity of the moment caused by the interference ruling.
Had they just handed Houston the World Series on a bad call?
We will never know.
Except they'll have another chance to blow it tonight.
Cue the two models!
36
I'm not a follower of either team, but it's obvious that Gurriel realized that the throw was not going to beat Turner so rather than extend his arm in the direction that the ball was coming from, he moved his arm back into the path of Turner (who was slightly in fair territory). Getting the "interference" call was more likely to get Turner out than actually getting the ball in time. Gurriel moved his glove back so that it blocked the baseline. This was not a good call.
160
@John
Gurriel must watch a lot of NFL games. If you can't catch a pass, flail your arms and scream for a flag -- especially if you're the home team and behind late in the game.
6
@John I agree with you! If you look at the still pictures, Gurriel's glove was half off his hand way before Turner came close to him.
10
@John - I very much agree.
10
As an earlier post reminded us, the Mets benefited in '69 when JC Martin got hit on the wrist on the throw to Davey Johnson covering first. Thankfully the umps blew the call, Martin was safe and the Mets walked off on the play. Turner was even further out of the assigned path than Martin. Seems the problem is the rule. The way it's set up, players are supposed to run the path to the right of the base, then: "The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base." Those are some very valuable ankles and hamstrings you put at risk expecting these guys to finish their sprint with a Texas Two-Step. Which is why everyone ignores the rule except every 50 years during a World Series game.
42
Reminds me of an old baseball quiz:
Name the 4 ways a player can get on base without their bat touching the ball.
Hints: 2 are easy, 2 are not, and a balk is not one of them.
1
@Dan88
Actually there are 5 ways a player can get on base without their bat touching the ball:
HBP
Walk
Running on a dropped 3rd strike
Interference by the catcher
Pinch runner
34
@mark
Good one with the Pinch Runner, Mark!
But that makes six (6), as the term Catchers Interference is generally applied to the Catcher interfering with the Batter's bat; the Catcher and any other fielder is guilty of outright Interference when they impede a Batter-Runner legally advancing.
4
@mark
Did Mark from Boston just one-up Dan from Long Island?
Sox 5 Yanks 4!
1
Much of what was captured in this wonderfully written article are some of the very things I love most about baseball.
Never change baseball, and again, nice job Mr. Powell.
46
I'm a Nats fan for this series and that was a good call. I also umpired travel baseball and softball and have made this call a small handful of times. And I've had coaches scream at me and I kicked one out of the park once. I only made the call if the runner actually interfered with the throw or the 1st baseman. That call always lights people up because it's not that obvious but does affect the play.
23
As a lifelong Brooklyn Dodger. NY Mets fan I will always feel a soft spot in heart for baseball, sadly the owmers amd networks have continued to matginalize the game - longer and longer games, tweaks in the rules that further interfere with the game, blowviated announcers, I increasingly watch soccer, spectacular athletes, one referee and an innovation (VAR) that actually improves the game .... a seventh game - I'm going to a see a play at the Irish Rep.
2
I remember the no call with J. C. Martin in the 10th inning of game 4 of the '69 series. Ball hit him in the wrist while running to first and no call! Mets scored on the play and won the game.
8
@JimC
I often think of that play as when it does occur, umpires most often miss it , or simply, "overlook" it.
I saw it the the College WS about 10-15 years - I think it involved Wichita State - where a runner interfered in 2 ways (one way was by actually running on the grass in fair territory). No Call from the umpire and the winning run scored.
OK, I was a Mets fan and it made me very happy that Martin was not called out. But, in retrospect it was definitely a wrong non-call.
So even though I have not watched a single pitch of this world series, I say "well-done" to the umpire and after a half-century, it's about time you guys finally got this call right.
4
It would seem that those criticizing the call never played baseball. When the runner runs inside the base path, he can cause the thrower to hesitate or short-arm the throw. To me, that is interference every bit as much as if the runner collided with the first baseman. Maybe the runner would be safe even with a more timely or more accurate throw, but the runner has created the uncertainty about the outcome by running out of his lane and the runner therefore should be penalized.
24
@Alex On the other, Turner was clearly reaching for the base, landed squarely on it, and in fact was hit by the ball just as his foot hit the base. In short, Turner was called for interfence by running toward and touching first base. Turner was not penalized for running outside the baseline. I thought runner's interference occurred when the base runner ran towards the defensive player instead of towards the base.
57
@D Interference all the way. This doesn't get called if there ia a play elsewhere. But that was an easy call to make.
8
@Alex - Trouble is, this rule seems to rarely, if ever, enforced. Players are taught to run on the inside of the baseline if it is a bunt or swinging bunt to impeded the throw. The old school method of solving this problem is to drill the runner in the back and let the welt convince him of the error of his way, which I agree with.
If this was enforced on a regular basis, I would agree, but it isn't and the umpires know it.
1