Running Lane Violation. No call.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

Please clarify!

Rule clearly states, while the ball is being thrown to first base.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.