|
|
|
Tue Jan 23, 2007, 07:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tee, I can buy into your theoretical "devil's advocate" argument. The problem comes when I try to sell my call at third from somewhere around the plate, or maybe even further across the diamond nearer the 45 foot line.
Do we not even try to gain angle on the possible trouble ball/foul ball on the RF line to sacrifice better angle for the play at 3b? This is the classic quandary of compromise in the 2 man system. In most cases, if the BU is in C, and he drifts back moving toward the 3rd base cut out to open his field of vision to see tags by R1 and R2, he will be at pretty close to the same angle the PU would be in covering the catch. Plus the BU will be closer.
__________________
Bob P. ----------------------- We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself. 
|
|
Tue Jan 23, 2007, 08:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep,
Bobby thank you for pointing out that I tied to "explain" what the guy might have meant.
We all know that this is just one of the compromise situations that occurs in two man coverage. We also "really know" that the clinician was wrong (if quoted correctly here) and that the poor BU has about 10 different things to do on this play. I would love to have an e-mail address of the clinician so I could ask him "what did you really mean?" One Rule ~ One Interpretation ~ One Mechanic (the correct one)
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
