1/ Law nerd that I am, I’ve been eager for someone to (i) provide the text of the “Trea Turner” rule, (ii) assess whether Turner violated the rule as written, and (iii) describe umpires’ actual, historical interpretation of the rule, as reflected in *practice.*
2/ I’m sure such an account is out there somewhere, but if it is I haven’t seen it. So allow me to offer a non-expert, outsider's take:
MLB Rule 5.09(a)(11) provides that a runner is out if “[i]n running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, ...
MLB Rule 5.09(a)(11) provides that a runner is out if “[i]n running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, ...
3/ ... while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs . . . 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” [with an exception not relevant here].
4/ The comment to the Rule in turn explains that, for purposes of the rule, “a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane [to the *right* of the foul line] or on the lines marking the lane,” *except* that ...
5/ ... “[t]he 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.”
The Rule and its Comment, then, provide that a batter is out ...
The Rule and its Comment, then, provide that a batter is out ...
6/ ... if he does both of *two* things: (i) run inside the foul line (i.e., in fair territory) at some time during the final 45 feet before first base *other than* in his final stride to the bag *and* (ii) “in so doing” interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
7/ Turner clearly ran inside the foul line for all of the final 45 feet—as all right-handed batters virtually *always* do. He also interfered with Gurriel’s “taking the throw.” Therefore it looks as though he probably violated the plain language ...
8/... of the two-condition prohibition in the Rule (but see Tweet # 14, infra, re: "in so doing"). Except for two things. First, Turner's “interference” with Gurriel occurred *only* in his “final stride” to the bag, which he made “for the sole purpose of touching first base” ...
9/ ... and which WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME STRIDE, WITH THE SAME EFFECT ON GURRIEL, if his previous six or seven steps had been in foul territory, in which case the exact same interference (running into Gurriel's glove) would *not* have violated the plain language of the Rule.
10/ And second, it appears that Turner's interference with Gurriel was immaterial: Turner would have been safe even if Gurriel had caught the ball (because Turner beat the throw).
11/ Whatever umpires’ practice might be where those two things are *not* present—and I’d be surprised if they typically call a right-handed batter out in such a "typical" case where, as here, he takes a straight path to the bag in the dirt ...
12/ ... (in which case the Rule should be updated to reflect that very reasonable practice)—I’d be *very* surprised if umpires usually call the batter out where it’s only his final, direct stride to the bag, just inside the line, that causes the interference, *or* ...
13/ ... where the runner beats the throw—let alone where both of those things happen. And if that's right, then Sam Holbrook probably shouldn't called Turner out in a crucial moment of Game 6 of a World Series for doing just that. [cont.]
14/ (Indeed, it's possible Turner didn't even violate the plain language of the Rule as clarified by the Comment, because the "in doing so" criterion might fairly be read to exclude cases where it's the final, ordinary stride to the bag that causes the interference.) [cont.]
15/ Whether I'm right about that or not, on this much I think we can all agree: Thank god for Anthony Rendon.
Cf. Rasheed Wallace.
Cf. Rasheed Wallace.
