ohlradio

If anybody is thinking about getting one of the 2.0's, today would be a good day. I'm seeing them on sale and then EMA8LUGSR coupon knocks it down to $119.99 shipped. I have the original model and sticking with it, but some prefer the 2.0. I received an email with the info so wanted to pass it along.

Have we made any progress with this thread or have people decided to stop because a couple people made it like this is some sort of federal case?

Don't get MLB network here so leave me on the list. :-)

In regards to DeMuth's mechanics, I would read it that once a play was being made on the obstructed runner (Craig at the plate) DeMuth should have killed the play and awarded Craig home. I take that as 7.06a (comment) "When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls “Time,..." Correct?

I assume you checked the video on the eBags website on the Motherlode product page with information on how to install the rods. I believe mine actually came with written instructions too. In my bag, top compartment has chest protector, shins, mask and shoes (each shoe in a shoe bag), it's tight but they're all there. Bottom divided into 3 compartments. 1. Shirts and pants are folded and sorted by color into eBags packing cubes. (6 shirts, 2 pants) 2. Folded jacket, socks, undershirts and a towel 3. cap caddy, cup, toiletry bag for indicators, pens and other extra stuff. Then in the mesh pockets above the bottom compartment I have ball bags. Side pockets used for rule books and to pack a laundry bag. I think that's everything, did it off the top of my head.

Adding another one to the list, and if it makes it to me I promise to move it along quickly. :-) 1. CodyLoe15 2. Bam 3. Larry in TN 4. Typhoon 5. Elares and many thanks to KLAH 6. BRUMP 7. rcjhyman 8. JDavis225 9. mjr2013 10. DVA7130 11. FlaUmp22 12. ohlradio

If anybody has this on DVD and could hook up a Canadian to be able to check it out I'd be very appreciative. No access to MLB Network here unfortunately.

The current deal (sale price plus coupon for a total of about $133) is the cheapest I've seen. But unless you need it right now I'd be tempted to wait until Black Friday. Looks like they did a 30% off coupon last year on Black Friday.

I have the regular, NOT the 2.0 and love it. I didn't like the straps across the top of the of the 2.0 model and didn't like the reviews of it. Today is a great day to grab it, on sale and coupon.

While there is a 15% code out today they often put out 20% codes. I was lucky and got 20% off plus they had it priced a little bit lower so it ended up being around $145 out the door. I have the original 29" MotherLode (not the 2.0 model) and love it.

Look, can we all just agree that unless someone brings forward new information - we leave this alone? This is just going around and 'round and in a lot of cases it seems like we're agreeing on most things but too many words are being thrown around that ends up making things muddy again.

Then ask them if on a R1/R2 double steal, if the catcher throws to second base, and R1 reaches second base before the tag, but R2 has not reached third base yet, R1 is ruled out even if he's on the base? I brought this up and they say that R1 would be out. Then you just walk away from the discussion....

We've already ironed out all the issues if the preceding runner returned to the base safely, we're into the 2 runners on the base at the same time situation. But in my scenario and the MLB one we never had that.

Then ask them if on a R1/R2 double steal, if the catcher throws to second base, and R1 reaches second base before the tag, but R2 has not reached third base yet, R1 is ruled out even if he's on the base? Or R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1? The answer to those questions is obvious, hence it's the same logic on this play. As mentioned above, the ONLY argument I've seen with any potential validity is that when Reyes re-touched 3rd base again, it gave him possession of the base - whether he continued to touch or not. Kind of like to avoid the silly play where if Reyes touches the base, but then un-touches it every time they try to tag Lawrie you'd be there all day. I still think in this situation Iassogna thought Reyes was touching the base when Lawrie was tagged, bringing into play 2 runners on same base.

Are any new arguments/interpretations coming to light? Or just the same as mentioned here trying to use 7.01 under entitlement, hadn't reached next base yet, etc. which we've proven wrong under examples such as double steal and force removed. The only possible interpretation that I heard that I gave any grain of salt to was that when Reyes made a play for the base by trying to dive for it, that constituted him re-taking possession of it, falling into the "2 guys on one base" rule. Not saying it's right, but don't have anything to disprove it either. I just wish this happened in a playoff game, then we probably would have gotten an interpretation that night and it would have been over with.