johnnyg08

Warnings don't work, only use them if required by rule. Just call balks, illegal pitches, etc... Those are the only things that will maybe have an impact.

Funny thing is that it doesn't work. If it did, he'd be in Cy Young territory which he isn't. Dumb gimmick...and I hate that this stuff trickles down.

When you're getting sniped...things like this will occur. One way to prevent it...stop sniping the umpire.

Slide or Veer

I had a roommate when I went last time. If I go again, I would get my own room because I'm older and crabbier now. 🙂

My slight counter point would be that since this is a new FED interp, I feel as though we should use a stricter interpretation early. If nothing changes in how it's called, then nothing will change.

I'm not going, but I have gone before. You should go! It's a great camp!

Fair assessment. I think the big takeaway from a play like this is the notion that continuing to run the bases after being put out is not interference. It only becomes interference when they impede the defense from playing on another runner...with one of those things NOT being if they choose to play on the retired runner again. Think of it this way....if that were the rule...the defense could intentionally play on a retired runner to get another out. One example states that a runner who is retired and is running across the diamond back to the dugout and the defense is trying make a play on R3 who is attempting to score...THAT would be retired runner interference.

So...with all of that in mind...do we have anything here for the retired runner (R1) to continue running the bases after he has been put out?

Some version of "out at 2"?

No, I think we want U3 in C with R1, R2 and < 2 outs.

Okay...I think it's time to release the video of the play in question:

Yep. Cheers!

No offense taken! 🙂 I actually like the interp. It requires the runner to essentially slide or avoid. The time was coming where an R1 was going to get dotted. There's only one reason they're going in standing and it's to distract the middle infielders. Plain and simple.

I get what you're saying, but we give BU both ends of that and hedging on critical action at 1B as more likely than a throw/play into 3B.

In our state for NFHS we want our PU to come up the 1B side. We feel as though we get a better perspective/look on R1's actions at 2B versus coming up on the 3B side. I never felt comfortable with the looks I was getting on the 3B side. I couldn't calibrate R1's path from the 3B side. I get a much better look from the 1B side....and my other responsibilities give me better positioning too.

This is a great way to look at it as you develop key to improve judgement.

Yep. Slide legally into the base or veer away from the fielder

NFHS Bases loaded. Two outs. Batted ball hits R2 in the foot as he's running from 2b to 3b and is correctly ruled out for interference. R3 completely crosses home plate before the interference on R2. Does the run count? Does it matter if there was less than 2 outs? Same scenario, but just R2, R3. Anything different? Was going to post some stuff from NFHS All Access, but you'll all be surprised to know that I can't get the RB and CB to load properly. 😁

Good. I haven't heard of any yet. But it's early here. Keep up the good work.

They play the budget card b/c they don't want to wear them. Tale as old as time.

Yes! It's been around for a long time! You know what they say...availability is the best ability!

Yes. Also true.

They sure can. But the reason I posted this is because this is what the violation will often look like in NFHS.

Batter runner isn't forced to run anywhere. It would be in his best interests to attempt to advance. By definition it's not a force out/force play. It's a bit pedantic to correct those who call it a force out...but by definition it is not. The more important instance to distinguish is that an appeal is 100% not a force out/force play.