Running Lane Violation. No call.

[bluehair]

I have a RLV. I think F2 double clutched because of the RLV.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I have a RLV. I think F2 double clutched because of the RLV.

Double-clutching is the catcher's fault, not the BR's. You cannot justify a violation because the catcher failed to throw immediately.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Double-clutching is the catcher's fault, not the BR's. You cannot justify a violation because the catcher failed to throw immediately.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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 1B and in fair territory the whole trip.

Whether the catcher does a double clutch or a backflip before throwing is not evidence of anything at all, and is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters (assuming a runner outside the lane, which this guy was, and assuming a quality throw) is whether he interferes with the ACTUAL throw that was made.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

And IMO interferred with F3 attempt to glove a quality throw.

You added after my reply!

If this is your opinion on the play, then it's definitely interference.

My point on this play was that I can't tell that from this angle and at this speed. I don't THINK it was... but I don't KNOW that it wasn't.

[bluehair]

I hit the "save" button after your reply. I hadn't seen your reply before I started editting my incomplete post, but that;s neither here or there.

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.

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?

[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).

[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!

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I have a RLV. I think F2 double clutched because of the RLV.

Unfortunately the rule doesn't let you make that call.