Running Lane Violation. No call.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bluehair

cheating.

REALLY?

Why do some think that because they have the ability to enunciate certain words, that they are also capable of making true statement.

Really?

That's almost like stating that because a catcher double-pumps we have RLI which MAY, be a little more credulous than "cheating".

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

Proof of no coaching ability.

[Steven Tyler]

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.

That wasn't a double clutch.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by jicecone

REALLY?

Why do some think that because they have the ability to enunciate certain words, that they are also capable of making true statement.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't know that runners are willfully running in a place that they know is illegal for them to run for the sole purpose of trying to get away with interferring with a throw/catch from behind them, then you are either naive/gullible or never played this game. yes, Cheating, Really

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Proof of no coaching ability.

I wonder if I went on a coaching website and told a coach that he had no umpiring ability, that he would be any more tickled than I am by this comment...nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

But you never answer my question, how do you get a player to disregard their safety/health for the benefit of the team. That is really the objective of drill that you were going to run to fix this error (the kid flinching). I know I don't have this coaching ability. I really doubt you do either...tell me how your coaching ability is going to get a kid to overcome this basic human survival instinct.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bluehair

then you are either naive/gullible or never played this game. yes, Cheating, Really

how do you get a player to disregard their safety/health for the benefit of the team. That is really the objective of drill that you were going to run to fix this error (the kid flinching). I know I don't have this coaching ability. I really doubt you do either...tell me how your coaching ability is going to get a kid to overcome this basic human survival instinct.

Funny you should include both comments. Lets see here, how about we start with, "Son this is what your going to do to keep your scholarship and/or stay on this Team".

Now you can call it coercion, gentle reminder of who controls the purse string, naivety, gullible or just plain fact. Your choice.

[dash_riprock]

There is no need to determine if there is cheating going on. If the B/R's illegal position made it more difficult for F3 to make the play, I have INT.

Others have opined that they need more harm than that to call the foul. That's fine. It's a judgement thing.

[RPatrino]

In a game yesterday, in the now SUNNY pacific northwest, I had a b/r run about a foot inside fair territory going to first. F1 fielded the ball, threw a strike to F3 to nail the b/r, who took the throw inside the bag, as coached.

Would you call interference on this?

[dash_riprock]

Doesn't sound like there was any interference to call.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

There is no need to determine if there is cheating going on. If the B/R's illegal position made it more difficult for F3 to make the play, I have INT.

Others have opined that they need more harm than that to call the foul. That's fine. It's a judgement thing.

This is what I had in my situation, and you opined that you didn't need more 'harm' than that to call it. Now you say don't call it. What do you really believe?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

This is what I had in my situation, and you opined that you didn't need more 'harm' than that to call it. Now you say don't call it. What do you really believe?

In your situation F3 made the catch. Why would I call INT in that?

[RPatrino]

Let me try this a different way (just one more time). In your post you state, "If the B/R's illegal position made it more difficult for F3 to make the play, I have INT."

Did you fail to add, "if F3 cannot make the catch"?

[dash_riprock]

Ok I'll play your game. Yes. If F3 makes the play, I have no INT.

[RPatrino]

Thanks for playing. Had you posted more clearly there would have been no need to keep asking for clarification.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I don't think the double clutch is irrelevant.

You are incorrect. By rule. What the catcher does before the throw has ZERO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether we should rule running lane interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

But IMO, It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released, and before it got to the bag.

Then you desperately need to re-read the rule. There CANNOT be RLI at this point. Period. In any rule set.