[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call.

Anyone? Thump said, "It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released". You said the double clutch was "evidence of an RLV" - that's kind of absurd... the runner's feet stepping out side the lane is the evidence you should be concerned with.

I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.

You are completely misinterpreting the rule then. You say that it is obvious BR violated the RL rule. There is no rule that says you can't run wherever the heck you want. Running somewhere does not violate anything. The RL rule is very clear and very easy... it says that IF YOU INTERFERE WITH THE FIELDER'S ABILITY TO CATCH A QUALITY THROW... and if you are out of the RL when you do so, then you have committed interference. Being out of the lane is nothing - the lane is simply a SAFE place where you cannot be ruled out for interfering with a thrown ball. You have the entire concept Bassackwards if you feel that leaving the lane is violating a rule.

If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference.

Thump did more clearly than you did.

Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.

I agree with all of this (except the bassackward part). I have no problem ruling INT on this play, although I wish we had a view that actually showed what happened to the ball between the time it passed (or touched) the batter and when it went bounding away. I only have issue with the concept that what the catcher does before throwing matters at all. You (and thump) need to understand that you have newbies on here reading and not posting. They are going to read your post, say to themselves, "That makes sense", and then rule someone out for being out of the lane when the catcher didn't even throw ... because they've followed your logic further and decided he didn't throw because of that runner "breaking a rule" or "cheating".

If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.

I get that ... and agree that worrying about a future conversation with coach should have the same amount of bearing on the call as the catcher's backflips. Zero, that is.