Running Lane Violation. No call.

[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 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 exactly correct. I honestly have no problem with an umpire seeing this play and ruling INT. I have a huge problem (obviously) with those who think it should have been called because the catcher double clutched - i.e. those who refuse to read and understand this rule.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is exactly correct. I honestly have no problem with an umpire seeing this play and ruling INT. I have a huge problem (obviously) with those who think it should have been called because the catcher double clutched - i.e. those who refuse to read and understand this rule.

I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call. I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.

If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference. The double clutch can’t be the reason for interference because no interference has occurred yet. Without a quality throw (except in Fed), there is nothing yet to be interfered with.

PU had a throw F1/F2, a force out at HP...then he has F2 double clutching...why the double clutch?...because B was violating the RL rule. It is not interference yet, but the double clutch might alert an umpire that interference might occur soon.

Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.

If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call.

Anyone? Thump said, "It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released". You said the double clutch was "evidence of an RLV" - that's kind of absurd... the runner's feet stepping out side the lane is the evidence you should be concerned with.

I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.

You are completely misinterpreting the rule then. You say that it is obvious BR violated the RL rule. There is no rule that says you can't run wherever the heck you want. Running somewhere does not violate anything. The RL rule is very clear and very easy... it says that IF YOU INTERFERE WITH THE FIELDER'S ABILITY TO CATCH A QUALITY THROW... and if you are out of the RL when you do so, then you have committed interference. Being out of the lane is nothing - the lane is simply a SAFE place where you cannot be ruled out for interfering with a thrown ball. You have the entire concept Bassackwards if you feel that leaving the lane is violating a rule.

If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference.

Thump did more clearly than you did.

Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.

I agree with all of this (except the bassackward part). I have no problem ruling INT on this play, although I wish we had a view that actually showed what happened to the ball between the time it passed (or touched) the batter and when it went bounding away. I only have issue with the concept that what the catcher does before throwing matters at all. You (and thump) need to understand that you have newbies on here reading and not posting. They are going to read your post, say to themselves, "That makes sense", and then rule someone out for being out of the lane when the catcher didn't even throw ... because they've followed your logic further and decided he didn't throw because of that runner "breaking a rule" or "cheating".

If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.

I get that ... and agree that worrying about a future conversation with coach should have the same amount of bearing on the call as the catcher's backflips. Zero, that is.