I am SO glad you are back! You are literally the only channel to actually reference the rule book and give a very clear explanation without emotion getting in the way. Many big channels get things like this very wrong so I'm so glad that you are making videos again

I umpired amateur baseball and softball for 30 years, working more than 2,500 games. This situation never happened in any game. Amazing!

Full disclosure, I am a Yankees fan who watched this play and was pissed the umps made the call they did. However, after this summary, I understand why the call was made; even if I am still angry 😅

Who would have thought this rule would be tested twice over the span of a week? Except in this case, it's pretty clear cut. Good handling by the crew. Plenty of opportunities for Boone to stay in, but he wanted no part of it.

GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE BACK! FINGERS, LEGS, AND TOES CROSSED FOR GOOD LUCK, HOPE YOU HAVE NO MORE INTERFERENCE!

Ironically, I think Soto was taking his time to try and avoid interference, because he was watching the infielders. He just got unlucky that the ball was coming down right on top of second base. But now players will know to hustle back to the base. Crazy to see this twice within a week.

Thanks again Lindsey, my appreciation for baseball increases with your education! Thank you for helping to demystify the world of baseball.

You've had a long week, and now there are two reaction videos in my feed this morning. Take the rest of the day off and get some rest. You've earned it.

I can’t wait until they get rid of runners and just use exit velocity and AI to determine base advancements

Thank you again, for the educational video. I understand the game better with every one of these I watch. Even as someone who has been in baseball for almost 30 years to some degree

In hockey, that was a fantastic hip check. ALSO: The Yankees coach and announcers need to read the GD rule book.

I think you need to start making videos been Boone ISN"T ejected. That would be a rarity.

Another great piece of analysis. I don't know how many times I've had to explain to people "it didn't happen because the ball was dead on the interference". I remember telling someone that "the fielder could have manifested Jedi powers, guided the ball to the left fielder who caught the ball cleanly, but it didn't happen because the ball was dead from the interference." Thanks for all you do.

Love this analysis! Just based on the “eye test” this checked all the boxes. Just glad you’re back!

This was great! Super informative!

Love to see a breakdown on the Giminez play for the guardians .

Well at least they will have plenty of new material to review and be informed about during off-season. Haha.

Brainiac Boone again 😂 Love this channel. Thanks CCS

Keep up the hard work, THANK YOU young lady!

Great explanation of the rule! Thank you!

I’m not understanding your answer to What is Soto supposed to do. If he hustled back to the base he would have interfered with the fielder on his way back.

Thanks for the explanation, CloseCallSports! If making a B-line back to the base is bound to cause interference, what should the baserunner do? When the fielder is close to the runner and the runner is off the bag, the fielder often moves around seemingly randomly making it near impossible to ensure that you don’t interfere.

Damn, twice in about a week.. I knew the rule about the base protection.. and great eyes on the umps seeing that he was not quite back on yet because it was close..

I agree with the umpire - and with Lindsay - here, after disagreeing vehemently on the Orioles-White Sox call. This struck me as interference on Soto; the one on Vaughn (Henderson) was not an instance of interference.

Interesting that on groundballs and running at pace, baserunners twist turn and jump to avoid either ball and or fielder, but on the slow developing flyball all athleticism is out the window. Key off course the runner must avoid being the cause of interference. Even on last week's play - no paying attention to fielder. My take on the ball being caught, it is the same effect as it is not caught. So essentially the same thing, so keeping judgement in mind, whether it is caught or not, the effect on batter-runner is the same. What if fielder intensively drops the ball, basically fooling around, same effect. Always appreciate your posts - keep on keeping on

I actually particularly like when the ejection videos include the season "pace" statistic. Just saying a thing I like; not trying to be pushy.

These videos are great.

Glad you are still with us! Have the copyright issues been resolved?

Is that ASL-Y signal for IFF an MLB-specific signal? I've never seen that mechanic used - in all other levels the umpires will signal each other by touching the brims of their caps with either a fist (0 outs) or one finger (1 out). The ASL-Y is mainly used in 2-umpire crews by the PU to let BU know 1st-to-3rd coverage on a hit to the outfield.

I suggest making another rule or addendum to the infield fly rule. When the infield fly rule is called, a runner will be safe if they are staying reasonably close to the base, (not trying to advance) and doing so to avoid interfering with the fielder. Even if they are off the bag, they are automatically safe just as the batter is automatically out. They must return to the base as soon as the catch is made or dropped. For example, if an infield fly is called with runners at first and second, and the second baseman or shortstop is in position to catch the pop-up, but is blocking the path to second base, the runner may stay in his position, indicate to the umpire that he is attempting to return to second base (for example by pointing at the bag) and then as soon as the catch is made or dropped, he returns to second base. In addition, the runner may make wide deviations to the base path but as long as he is pointing to second base, and his movement makes it obvious that he is trying to avoid interference, he is automatically safe. He must return to the base after the catch is made. Any tags by infielders to a runner off base will not result in an out as long as the runner is moving back to the base. If the fielder drops the ball, the batter is still out, and the runners may return to their base without risk of being tagged out. Once the runner touches the base, regular play resumes. This would not be the only rule where a runner off base may not be tagged out. It's similar to the rule that a batter who overruns first base on a ground ball and beats the throw to first is automatically safe if he stays in foul territory and is not attempting to advance to second base.

I might be crazy, but could Soto maybe, I don't know, move around the front of the fielder?

There is no right of a pathway back to the base when a protected fielder is attempting to field a batted ball.

Hey Linds, I'm curious if you saw the Cody bellinger out of the basepath call over the weekend when the Cubs faced the cardinals. It felt to me like he was well within his rights as a runner (but i may be a bit biased)

That’s also why the umps call the infield fly, so the runners should know they need to tag the base without interference towards the infielders. Clear as crystal.

You're saying Soto could have just gotten back to the base with haste, and I agree, but with the White Sox example, how can you say they got that one right, bc that's exactly what that runner did. If the White Sox call was made correctly, then basically you're saying any baserunner who had a lead prior to an infield fly popup was hit will be out. I say that bc any run who has a lead (every runner ever) will automatically be off the bag when the infield fly popup is hit, and so even if they go directly back to the bag and don't interfere with the catch like in the White Sox example, you'll still say the double play call was correct? How can you possibly justify the White Sox call? I don't get it. The runner literally went right back to the bag

Please do a reaction to the Cody Bellinger out of the Basepath call against the Cardinals a few days ago!!

I was on the other side of this argument before I saw this video, but you’re totally right, he shouldn’t have been so lax getting back to the base. The rules around this make a lot more sense to me now.

Curious, but how does one score that runner batted ball interference on the scorecard?

Right on target in the critique of all three. Nice work.

04:20 So if Soto had run back to the base would he not have then been in FRONT of the baseman just like at 01:08? He was in no mans land.

Nice to have you back!

It appears to me that contact isnt made till hes touching the base

It was just unfortunate that the Angels shortstop badly misjudged the pop up, causing the collision with Soto. I’m sure Soto won’t stray the next time.

I think Soto actually knew the rule that if there was contact while he was on (touching) the base, then it wouldn't be interference. It looks intentional that he was slow to get back, and had a little push with his right arm - probably thinking it would be okay while he is touching the base with his foot, however, the contact and even what looks like the subtle push, occurred right before his foot hit the bag. Great rules analysis as always!

The other thing he could have done is go around. When the fielder is the protected player due to it being a batted ball, the runner can't necessarily bee-line to the base. They have to avoid the fielder.

This one is on Soto. On an Infield Fly, the fielder is going to have their eyes up in the air, and the runner can run whatever circuitous route back to the base is necessary. Yes - run back to the base while avoiding the fielder.

Aaron Boone’s first ejection without Angel Hernandez

Most stupid call ever. Soto basically needed to foresee that the ball was falling in that direction

Hey Linds, wouldn't a solution to this rule be to install a delayed interference call similar to a delayed obstruction? Call the obstruction, and if the ball is dropped, or the interference causes a mis-play, then kill the play and call him out, and let no runners advance? In the Chicago play, I think that would be justified. On this play, I think it would still be a double play considering the contact and the drop.

No, looking at this again, I stand by what I thought yesterday: The interference is a subtle "hip check" done by R2 to impede the catch by the fielder. Batter is out, infield fly. R2 is out, standard interference. Double play.

The Chicago call didn’t appear to be intentional. He was looking at the ball in the air and had no way of knowing the path of the fielder. The one on 3rd base looked like that hip check was given with intentional force and was timed.

This is crazy!🤪

Well, i don't think anyone would argue Soto didn't interfere. During the play last week, the "interference" was so minimal it was ridiculous.

My understanding of the rules is that a runner is entitled to be on the base. Thus, one can not be guilty of interference when on a base. Soto's foot was on the base before the fielder backed into him. Calling Soto out was therefore incorrect.

Sometimes it's just bad luck where your teammate hits the ball. That's ok. We don't need a rule change to stop it from happening. But in this case it doesn't really look like the runner was being lazy. He was at a normal lead and he couldn't run directly back to the base because the fielder was there. The only real option was to run quickly in a circuitous path way around the base and then come back to it to avoid the fielder and even then basically guess which way the fielder was going to go at the last second and go the opposite way. This one was much less the runner's fault, in my mind.

I wanted to add this. The fielder appears to misjudge the pop-up, and he came in too far and then had to back pedal to get under it. I feel the fielder made contact with the runner and not the runner making contact with the fielder. Is there a difference? Even though Soto took his sweet time going back, the fielder still moved right into his path after he basically messed up the pop-up.

Ya, I have to say, Soto has a very hi baseball IQ and I think he timed it perfectly so as to make it look like he was “not” interfering. But I lean towards thinking he knew exactly what he was doing. Pretty smart play if you ask me.

It looked deliberate from Soto too 😂

So we go halfway on a popup now?

3:35 linds, are you saying Soto should have done the most acrobatic slide in history to avoid the fielder and reach the bag in time? This play was screwed from The moment the pop up happened. MLB needs a full rewrite of this rule it’s so stupid.

This is how it's supposed to go. You are stopped at a stop sign, you are a runner, the guy who doesn't have a stop sign (such as from a two-lane road to a four-lane road) the traffic (fielders) always have the right of way

Love your analysis but there's no such word a "laxadaisically". It's "lackadaisically". 😀

Gotta say, last time while it was correct by rule it felt unfair... not this time.

I mean what are the odds?!

I disagree that was on the shortstop 100% he went into soto regardless of the rule ump got that wrong

So we all know how well Bonne knows the rules...

Interference on what they called infield fly rule batter is already out he doesn’t have to catch it for the out

It's really sad that the announcer says the runner has to have a path back to the base. By rule the fielder does not need to give him that path. Why on earth on a high pop fly with less than 2 outs is the runner not going back to the base as quickly as he can.

This is the right call and why the rule is in place. Unlike last week, this is clear interference. This also would have resulted in a run. Which is why this rule is in place.

Also funny that the Yanks had a bit of bad luck on the Soto interference and a bit of good luck on the Rizzo one because that ball would most likely have been a DP if it hadn't hit Rizzo, but by the rule, they can't say it's a DP, so the Yanks got one more out to play with as a result.

Soto should have been going back to the base quicker, anyways because if Neto catches the ball, he could have very easily tagged him out for a double play. Not sure why he was so far off the base and lackadaisically running back.

Correct call. Perhaps a rule change is in order?

Why would people talk about the runner needing a clear pathway??? The runner is allowed to run into centerfield, as long as he/she is not doing it to avoid a tag. The basepath is defined as a straight line from the runner to the base - from WHEREVER HE/SHE IS. But the batter/advancing runner ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS must move out of the way of the fielder and give him/her a chance to field the ball,

I wonder where the line is for the fielder wandering around places where the ball isn't actually at. If you watch the fielder in this clip, he's all over the place before finally settling down. At 2:35 we see the fielder at least 6' away from where the ball is caught. If he weren't "fielding" that would be obstruction. At some point that's obstruction, right? You can't just "field" wherever you want. At some point it has to be connected to where the ball is, right? Presumably there's some "good faith effort" to field or something?

now that angel has retired, the lack of angel videos will probably force youtube out of business.

Nice Judo Demonstration...=)

Also, did Soto have to be called out when, in fact, the ball does not even need to be caught. The fly rule was called, so why is Soto out (Nedo caused the contact). Now if the ball bounced away and it allowed runners to move up then you could call Soto out. But nothing else happened. A bad rule or was it a judgment call by the ump? Could the ump have not called Soto out? Or is it one of those automatic things and had to be called? I just feel due to the automatic fly rule out the contact did not create any further advancement of the runners then Soto is not out. Confusing.

If I had a nickel for every time I have seen this called, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Right?

The lesson here is, the moment you see a pop up in an infield fly situation, you sprint back to the base before it's even possible to get in the fielders way

OH WAIT I PAUSED TOO EARLY

If baserunner was hustling, he would have been deemed safe. Note to all young players, hustle on all plays. Run out your ground balls. Run to first on a walk. Run, don’t trot, when you hit a home run. Bring your best. Soto didn’t bring his best. It cost him. Even worse, it cost his team.

New rules: infield fly rule ( dead ball automatically) batter out Thats iiiit

MLB needs to come out and clarify what a runner is supposed to do in that situation. If Soto doesn't go back to the bag he would have been out. He was really damned if he did damned if he didn't. Also if Soto never left second base is it still interference when they inevitably bump into each other? Nevermind I should have finished the video lol.

Soto waited to allow the fielder to cross his path. He would've interfered if he ran straight back to the base. The fielder misplayed the ball. The rule itself is stupid if umpires can't make a discretion call, and if they can, and this is what they came up with, they suck.

Once again, further proof that announcers don't know the rule book or watch CCS!

Soto straight up hip checked the fielder.

If Soto ran back to the base immediately he could have collided with the fielder and been called anyways. Soto was explicitly looking at the fielder so he wouldn't run into them...at first. But the ball lands directly in the airspace of the bag. Saying the runner shouldn't leave the bag and should remain motionless is fantasy - they're already off the bag taking a lead when the ball is hit, and they can't know where it would land. I think this was interference and the correct call because of the sudden violent act of shoving the fielder but there really was nothing Soto could have done differently in the beginning because of the badly written rule he could be judged to be interfering no matter what he does.

Atleast we still won the game but this could have been the game

Soto should've done what Reyes did here (see video ID S3lUrLquolk), although this other play was not an infield fly rule situation (only a runner on second).

IMHO, the rule needs to change: when there is unintentional interference on an infield fly, batter is out, and all the baserunners lose their ability to advance at their discretion and are returned to their original bases if they had succeeded in advancing (if they managed to get themselves thrown out during the course of action though, they are still out). Becuase, of course, the baserunning rules aren't complicted enough.🤣 TBH though, this lags behind the check-swing rule and (our newest issue) catcher interference in needing a look see and revision.

Soto definitely interfered but the White Sox didn’t. What do they expect runners to do? Teleport back to the base?

Your information is wrong and runners can advance on an infield fly if the ball is not caught. They do not have to tag up. So Soto not rushing back to the bag is not his fault. Bad take.

Soto can't go immediately to the base because he would interfere with the fielder's forward movement in tracking the ball. He obviously wasn't able to wait until the fielder had moved far enough forward to move behind him because now the fielder reverses into him. His remaining options are: stand still until after the fielder is done moving back & forth and catches the ball so he can be tagged out, or express his latent precognitive abilities in order to take the circuitous path that avoids the fielder throughout their movement and somehow get back to the bag before a tag. It's basically a no-win scenario for the runner, but that's how you get a non-judgement call for the umpire vs. "was it intentional or not intentional?".

This is why MLB needs to leave LIndsay alone.......how else is Aaron Boone going to learn the rules?!?

Soto is out because he didn't hustle. He'd better be running laps in practice for a week or two.

I understand the Ru Paul

The one last week was questionable. This one was obvious. It’s Soto’s job to avoid hitting the fielder in this instance. Intentional or not doesn’t matter. He knocked the fielder over and prevented him from making the catch. Interference all day long. This play was over either way as soon as he failed to run back to the bag quickly enough.

Great call by the umpire. Soto and Boone doesn’t know the rules. Easy double play for the Angels. Aaron Boone just being Aaron Boone because he has to protect his STAR …

what a great hip check!

Juan Soto could have prevented the doubleplay by *not* being an ass-bite. He saw the infielder drifting to catch the high pop-up directly above 2b. Soto capped his last step to the bag with an accidentally-on-purpose collision with the defender. Boone should have ripped Soto a new one, instead of the umpire.