The role says in the vicinity, so where the ball is is extremely relevant. Go watch both plays and where their feet are as the ball gets in the vicinity. Meyers is on the foul line while Turner never reached the foul line until after he passes the bag. The ball is not in the vicinity when it is at home plate.
This is why the rule is ridiculous. The rule talk about the line being 45 feet out. But then it also states it only matter when in the vicinity. But it also states a player can leave the baseline at the last second to touch the base (i.e. while in the vicinity). Pretty much all of these statements are in direct opposition to each other. It's amazing the MLB did nothing with this rule after 2019, and then the exact same thing happens at the exact same first base with the exact same teams and be the deciding play of the game. The type of miraculous thing that only seems to happen in baseball. Regardless. I would still argue he was not fully in the runner's lane while in the "vicinity" of first base, which implies some amount of space BEFORE the bag. This site does a pretty good breakdown of the play. https://www.closecallsports.com/2023/06/dave-martinezs-nats-lose-on-walk-off.html The picture shows that maybe the outside edge of Meyer's right foot is over the inside part of the foul line. The other 90% of his body width is to the left of the line. Seems a bit of a stretch to say he was in runner's lane while in the vicinity.
I think what they ruled was that it was a poor throw that had nothing to do with where the baserunner was, arguably the ball hit him in foul territory since where it hit him on the head was to the right of where the chalk started and Jake didn't run an extreme route in an effort to interfere. Part of the rule is subjective for better or worse. Essentially the ump ruled that the ball didn't hit him due to the path he chose to run, it hit him because it was a bad throw.
It's always been up to the umps for interpretation on the field and they have stated that "as long as the runner goes in a straight line from which is initially established then it's not interference". After the hit, you can clearly see Myers starting his run to first on the inside of the baseline near the grass, and he continued that path toward the base only coming out of it to touch the bag. The throw was high anyhow hitting him in the helmet as he was crossing the bag. The catcher had an opportunity to throw more left to the 1st baseman and thew an errant throw. Definitely not interference on this play.
The right handed batters box requires hitters to start their run to 1b inside the baseline. The runner actually needs to take extra time ( micro seconds?), longer path( inches? Fraction of an inch?) and changing focus to get into the correct running path ( vs a LHH) Then the base is entirely in the field of play which requires the runner to change focus again to make sure they step back to the left and touch the base. MLB should make a running lane that is a straight line from both both batters boxes to first base and allow the runner (regardless of which side they start from) to utilize the entire thing. As long as they maintain a straight path to the base and are within the lane, all is good the umpire has no call. If they run outside the lane and an error is made, then it is a judgement call by the ump whether that contributed to the error. If they are within the lane, they are safe and no error can be called.
Where is the official statement about running in a straight line? The rules have absolutely no mention of "straight line." If the umps have interpreted it as running in a straight line to the left of where the rules say they're supposed to run is okay, then that's an interesting interpretation of the rule. I would call it more of a modification. Trea Turner, who also ran in a straight line, should have been safe as well. But yeah, ultimately I agree with you that the rule should be modified to say that as long as the runner is running in a straight, reasonable line, then there's no interference. It would virtually never be called on a technicality anymore, and only called for actual flagrant interference. Right now it seems like some umps interpret the rule as written and others essentially ignore it. Also, a nice picture of the Turner play. The throw by Peacock was even more to the inside than the throw last night, and Peacock had more of an angle to throw the ball to first and avoid the runner, since he was actually in the field and not standing on home plate. Also of note (but completely irrelevant to the rule), is Turner uses his left foot to touch the base, whereas Meyers is using his right, which makes more of Meyers body to the left of the foul line as he's touching the bag. Common sense says neither of these were interference. Unfortunately, if you take the stupid rule by the book, then both should have been called interference.
In this video it looks like the throw carries the ball over the bag and the glove makes contact with the helmet.
I think you're giving the ump too much credit. "Martinez said he was not given an explanation beyond that plate umpire Jeremy Riggs saw Meyers run down the line." The ump didn't even notice Meyers was running outside of the line.
It would definitely be easier if they said you must stay within the lane the whole time, but it seems weird to have a lane that isn't a direct path to the bag for RHB. No question this is as close at gets. If he's 2 inches over, it is clearly interference. If the throw is a split second sooner, it is also clearly interference because no doubt he only got that left foot to the line on his last step before the bag, and even then it is just on the line. That close calls website actually has a lot of great videos beyond just that page, but in every instance of interference being called, the runners were not in the lane at all, while Meyers isn't called out and had both feet on the line. Rule 5.09(a)(11) 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. His left foot is on the line just barely, which is why I personally think they made the right call. Kind of wish it was like the NBA and you'd get an official comment on this being a right or wrong call. MLB at best probably just publicly says it is a judgement call. Meanwhile, Turner's right foot is even outside of the lane when he gets called for interference. If you asked me, I'd give the runner the dirt area (obviously they would need to make sure that is consistent between parks) and also extend the base into foul territory like softball, though I think I'd allow the runner and fielder to use either side of the base so the 1B can set up in foul territory if they choose on throws from the catcher.
It doesn't matter for the game, but it is an interesting discussion, IMO. I assume the play wasn't reviewable since they never went to review, but it definitely should be.
It was really close and I think the deciding factor was how terrible the throw was, it pretty clearly drifted on him and that's the ONLY reason it hit the runner. Also, I think after the league made the bases larger, there's less sympathy for these kinds of plays. The runner didn't cause the throw to be nowhere near the first baseman. When on one hand you have a player running on the line getting hit in the helmet at the bag, it's hard to see the throw being a "quality throw" which is a factor. If I was the ump, I'd have told the manager something similar. "Meyers ran down the line and Ruiz simply made a bad throw"
I'll just say I don't want to be the one that has to make this throw.. Since Meyers it's not running where he's supposed to, his most clear throw is to the runner's lane (where Meyers is supposed to be according to the rules). Already there is something wrong with this picture. And Myers is actually drifting to the right, making it more difficult. Throwing to the left is even more problematic. He'd have to time the throw to be at such a close angle that it would whiz just behind the head of Meyers as he's drifting to the right, in order to keep the first baseman on the bag. I'm not saying he couldn't have made a good throw, but it's not easy. And it's made more difficult by Meyers not running where he's supposed to run according to the rules. The whole runner's lane rule sounds like it was written by an invalid. The runner's lane must start 45 feet away from the bag for some reason, but then the rules suddenly shifts to only referencing what happens in the "vicinity" of first base. In which case, logically, it seems like the only reason the running lane would exist is to allow for a line of sight between the catcher and first basemen in a play exactly like this one (or even in the reverse direction). Yet the rule doesn't mention line of sight at all, unless there is some way to interpret it from the current text (but I'm not seeing it). I really wish the MLB would comment on this play, but it's probably so low stakes that they will just hope it goes away. I remember Joe Torre actually was forced to give an explanation of the Turner play after the World Series game.
This is a perfect picture to show the problem with the current lane. From the right batters box, Meyers is perfectly straight to the bag. He did not veer left. He is perfectly between where his swing ended and 1B. A right handed hitter has to actively move to the right in addition to towards first base. But then the bag is to the left of the running lane. I have an idea - all left handed batters run counter clock ways, but righties run clockwise to 3rd base. Any base runners change directions if an opposite handed hitter ( from the past one) comes up. Wanna get a runner from 1st to scoring position at 3rd base? Just change to a RH batter, lol. FTR I am not even remotely serious my point is that there just isn't a reasonable solution or MLB would have redesigned that part of the field decades ago.
My 2 cents: First it is a judgement call so the umpire calls what he sees and that's that. Second, Martinez' picture is too early in the play to prove his point. The catcher hasn't even received the ball and the umpire is watching the play at home to record the out. By the time he is looking up the line, Myers is 4-5 steps, at least, further along. From evidence later in the play you can see he is moving towards the foul line/running lane. In fact in the @juicystream picture he appears to be on the foul line which by rule is part of the box. The lane is meant as a protection of the fielder on a play at the base. It is not meant that the runner has to be in that box the whole time and he doesn't have to immediately get into the box when he gets 45 feet from the base. However, if he is 45 feet from the base, not in the box and gets plunked by the ball it should be called interference. So in the Martinez photo there is no immediate play on Myers so not being in the box is irrelevant. Once the play is made towards first he has to be in the lane which the later photo shows that he is on the foul line and thus considered in the lane. By rule the runner can move out of the lane towards first on his last step which Myers appears to do as the ball simultaneously reaches the bag. The difference between last nights play and the Turner play is probably just a few inches, but in the Turner play it doesn't appear he is in the lane or in contact with the foul line prior to stepping to the bag. That was his mistake and why he was called out.
