MLB Could Use a Little Less Judgment

Hugh Atkins

Rule changes in Major League Baseball are becoming as much a part of the off-season as trades, free agent signings, and winter caravans. Last season saw the implementation of the pitch clock, and MLB is making some tweaks to deal with a few of the loopholes players and managers used to gain a few extra seconds between pitches at critical times. 

Another change for the coming season involves the runner’s lane, that last 45 feet of the first-base line separated by a parallel line three feet to the right of the baseline. The previous rule required the batter to run the last half of his trip to first base in this runner’s lane and only veer back toward fair territory when stepping on the base. Any runner straying into fair territory and causing interference with the defense in their effort to complete a throw to first base was supposed to be called out. But it doesn’t always happen that way, even when a throw hits the runner. 

© T.C.G.

Over the years umpires seemed to arbitrarily decide whether to call a runner out when a thrown ball hit the runner when he was on the inside of the baseline. The main problem with the rule is the language “if in the umpire’s judgement.” It merely should be a logical decision. If the runner is not in the lane and a throw to first base hits him, then the runner is out. As is frequently the case with judgment calls, these plays have led to many a rhubarb over the years, the most famous of which occurred during the 1969 World Series. 

Game 4 of that Series between the Baltimore Orioles and the New York Mets was tied 1-1 going into the bottom of the 10th inning. The Mets had runners on first and second with no outs when manager Gil Hodges sent J.C. Martin up to pinch hit for starting pitcher Tom Seaver. Martin dropped a great bunt toward first base. Orioles’ pitcher Pete Richert fielded the ball and fired it toward first base. The ball struck Martin on the left wrist and caromed into the outfield. Rod Gaspar, who pinch ran for Jerry Grote, came around from second base to score the winning run, and the Mets went up 3-1 in the Series. 

© T.C.G.

There was no question that Martin was in fair territory when the ball struck him, so he should have been called out. But apparently in the judgement of plate umpire Shag Crawford, Martin did not interfere with first baseman Boog Powell’s ability to catch the throw. I contend Crawford’s judgment never should have entered into the call, especially if his judgment was so poor that he didn’t think that Martin being hit by the throw interfered with the first baseman’s ability to catch it. Martin wasn’t in the runner’s lane, and the ball hit him; therefore, he should have been called out. 

I imagine that over the years umpires gradually expanded the judgment granted them in the rule to interpret not only whether a runner interfered with a throw, but also to decide whether a runner intentionally interfered with a throw. The rule never gave them that authority. 

I believe MLB was wise to address the runner’s lane rule. However, they merely should have taken the umpire’s judgment out of it and otherwise left it the way it was. The wording of the updated version of the rule gives the runner more room to interfere with throws to first base, which, unfortunately, gives the umpires more room to use their judgement. And that rarely is a good thing.

(Game details are from Newspapers.com and Retrosheet.)