LLWS showtime

[bigsig]

I watched the play and thought it was a clean hit. If you watch the 2B who took the throw at 1B she had the wrong foot (her right foot) on the bag which IMO put her into the path of the runner.

Having said that, the next inning the other team crashed into the F3 which I thought was obvious interference and retaliation. I wouild have tossed the base runner.

[mick]

Originally Posted by bigsig

I watched the play and thought it was a clean hit. If you watch the 2B who took the throw at 1B she had the wrong foot (her right foot) on the bag which IMO put her into the path of the runner.

Having said that, the next inning the other team crashed into the F3 which I thought was obvious interference and retaliation. I wouild have tossed the base runner.

If BR hadn't run the distance inside the path, then F4 (not F3 as I wrote) would not have been close enough to BR to get knocked down and would have held R1 @2B. Seems to me R1 returns to 2B.

I saw this play. I thought BR deliberately ran inside the line in fair territory. I also thought she deliberately took out F4. I think the calls should have been:

BR out at 1st
Deliberate and malicious interference on BR after the out
Runner closest to home out
BR ejected

R1 was going to 3rd on the play. I know that F4 threw to 3rd after being hit but she was spun around and if not for being hit I think she had a good opportunity for an out at 3rd.

I also think this play is a good argument for the double safety base at first.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mick

If BR hadn't run the distance inside the path, then F4 (not F3 as I wrote) would not have been close enough to BR to get knocked down and would have held R1 @2B. Seems to me R1 returns to 2B.

But, you forgot to mention that the F3 was totally blocking the bag prior to her receiving the ball. That is an element that also needs consideration.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

But, you forgot to mention that the F3 was totally blocking the bag prior to her receiving the ball. That is an element that also needs consideration.

Didn't happen like that, Scott.
BR had outside 1/2 of bag.
Stepped in the middle.
The intent was there to make the fielder fumble.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mick

Didn't happen like that, Scott.
BR had outside 1/2 of bag.
Stepped in the middle.
The intent was there to make the fielder fumble.

Note the emoticon, Mick.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by bigsig

I watched the play and thought it was a clean hit. If you watch the 2B who took the throw at 1B she had the wrong foot (her right foot) on the bag which IMO put her into the path of the runner.

Two things:
No requirement on which foot is on the bag. I know, I know...it's a fielding mechanics deal. But there's no rule that says she has to have a certain foot on the bag...just like no rule that coaches must have common sense.

And...

There's a reason for that running lane. This runner clearly had both feet inside the line (i.e. on the fair side of the line) the whole way.

BTW, I don't have a problem if you don't want to call INT, for INT is a judgement call.

[mick]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Two things:
No requirement on which foot is on the bag. I know, I know...it's a fielding mechanics deal. But there's no rule that says she has to have a certain foot on the bag...just like no rule that coaches must have common sense.

And...

There's a reason for that running lane. This runner clearly had both feet inside the line (i.e. on the fair side of the line) the whole way.

BTW, I don't have a problem if you don't want to call INT, for INT is a judgement call.

Now, I realize that this play had little or no effect on the game.

That said, BR, after avoiding the ball, was angled straight to the lane and then veered left to intentionally "attempt" to interfere with the throw. If it was not intentional she would not have taken her first step at the beginning of the lane to the left.