Running Lane Violation. No call.

[bob jenkins]

Could very easily have been judged to be RLI -- and I'd suspect we'll see it at next year's pre-season meetings

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Does RLV interference happen in an instant (as the ball passes B) or is RLV interference an on-going process from the time of throw to the attempted gloving?

It happens the moment that the umpire determines the fielder at first base cannot receive the throw. That usually happens as the ball approaches the bag, or, more obviously, when the ball hits the BR while he's out of the lane. You cannot make that judgment when the catcher first throws the ball because you have no idea where the ball is going and whether or not the fielder will be unsuccessful at making the play.

So, where you say...

Originally Posted by bluehair

When B re-enters the video (throw has already been made), he is in fair territory with several strides to go before reaching 1B.

...the ball is still a significant distance from first base at that point. No umpire is going to kill play when the ball is still in flight behind the BR.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

B gets to be in fair territory to touch 1B, and I'd give him a step or two grace (if he's not interferring). When B re-enters the video (throw has already been made), he is in fair territory with several strides to go before reaching 1B. It looked to me like F3 was getting his teeth out of the way because of B's interference.

If that's what you see, cool.

Does RLV interference happen in an instant (as the ball passes B) or is RLV interference an on-going process from the time of throw to the attempted gloving?

If you really have this question, then it really doesn't matter what I say to you, although I would suggest you ask your next clinician or some upper level person in your area that you WILL believe.

But to answer - very close to the former. The latter is absurd in context of the rule as written and enforced. But I do know in advance that you won't believe that statement coming from me.

[Rich Ives]

This is SEC right - big time D1 NCAA. Not some LL minors team from Scrubville.

If I read this right the catcher double-clutched, couldn't find a lane, and then F3 had the ball hit him in the glove and he dropped it.

I might ask for a call just to see if I could get it but we'd be running the drill a whole bunch of times next practice because I know who really screwed up.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I might ask for a call just to see if I could get it but we'd be running the drill a whole bunch of times next practice because I know who really screwed up.

Does this drill have some player standing with his back to a throw while F2 fires the ball over his shoulder? ...F3 gets to practice not flinching as the ball deflects or not deflects off of the simulated BR. How badly does a teammate need to piss off his coach to be chosen as the simulated BR (it always pays to have a deep bench...next).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Does this drill have some player standing with his back to a throw while F2 fires the ball over his shoulder? ...F3 gets to practice not flinching as the ball deflects or not deflects off of the simulated BR. How badly does a teammate need to piss off his coach to be chosen as the simulated BR (it always pays to have a deep bench...next).

Most of them have some sort of "batter simulator" that gets used in the bullpen -- they could just put that on the line.

Otherwise, that's what freshmen are for.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Does this drill have some player standing with his back to a throw while F2 fires the ball over his shoulder? ...F3 gets to practice not flinching as the ball deflects or not deflects off of the simulated BR. How badly does a teammate need to piss off his coach to be chosen as the simulated BR (it always pays to have a deep bench...next).

Are you serious?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Are you serious?

I think, based on the emoticon, that he was not. I thought it was rather funny, actually.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

This is SEC right - big time D1 NCAA. Not some LL minors team from Scrubville.

If I read this right the catcher double-clutched, couldn't find a lane, and then F3 had the ball hit him in the glove and he dropped it.

I might ask for a call just to see if I could get it but we'd be running the drill a whole bunch of times next practice because I know who really screwed up.

Absolutely right, Rich!

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

It is not justification for that call, it is evidence of a RLV. When F2 did release the throw B was more than a step or two from reaching 1B and in fair territory the whole trip. IMO B interferred with F3 attempt to glove a quality throw.

This. The double-clutch is irrelevant. There is no doubt F2 got off a quality throw in time to beat the B/R, who was never in the running lane. It's an easy play for F3 if the B/R is running legally. I have INT.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Are you serious?

I would have used a joke font if one was available. I do appreciate you providing the inspiration for some fresh material. Though I do wonder what drill you could run to get F3 to disregard all the the money mom/dad spent on dental/orthondontal work.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

This. The double-clutch is irrelevant. There is no doubt F2 got off a quality throw in time to beat the B/R, who was never in the running lane. It's an easy play for F3 if the B/R is running legally. I have INT.

I don't think the double clutch is irrelevant. It is one piece of evidence of what's going on here...Cheating. If this cheating causes a botched out, and all the requirements for RLI are met (I believe they have) penalize the cheater.

Sometimes there is fine line between OOO a play and having the balls to make a tough call.

[briancurtin]

The double clutch is irrelevant. You come to the same conclusion as dash with the call, but how you got there involves too much.

This was harped on for probably 10+ minutes at the NCAA meetings in Chicago. I can still hear Jim Paronto overly enunciating everything about this.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

The double clutch is irrelevant.

The double clutch does not help satisfy any of the requirements for a RLI call, I agree. What is relevant about the double clutch is that it can give an umpire a clue about what might be happening here...cheating.

[kylejt]

Here's what I saw:

The PU never bothered to get into any sort of position to look for a running lane violation (his next responsibility, after the force out). Yeah, he needed to still be behind the dish, as there was a runner coming toward third, but he needed to move to his left, and look down the barrel at first, IMO.

U1 stuck his left hand out, for some reason, as the ball got away.

The ball, the runner and F3 mitt all came together right at the bag. Hard to call any sort violation there. If the runner had been in the lane the entire time, then moved over to hit the bag, again IMO, you'd have the same situation.

It was really a "blink of an eye" situation, with no clear call to be made. Even slowed down, it was tough to make a judgement.

[thumpferee]

Watched the replay of the game yesterday on ESPNU. BR was out of the lane but as most have said it happened right at the bag. Mainly because of the double clutch gave BR time to make it there. Couldn't tell if maybe he had no one to throw it to, if it got stuck in the glove or what. But anyway, I see where a RLV could have been called here. But IMO, It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released, and before it got to the bag.

Well, I have a FED V game yesterday, I got the dish. Wouldn't you know it. Bases loaded, 1 out, Same EXACT play happens! I mean EXACTLY! (Except F5 fielded it coming toward the mound). Throw to the plate, out on the force, steps inside, throws to 1st where F3 is set up inside, hits runner on the right shoulder (outside) who is now just inside on his last stride to the bag.

I had nothing! AND, not one complaint.