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.

In the maze of arms and legs I believe Iasgona THOUGHT Reyes (R3) and Lawrie (R1) were both touching the base when Lawrie was tagged, hence calling Lawrie out. Then, when he saw Reyes tagged while off the base, he called him out as well. But in reality, Reyes was not touching the base and therefore Lawrie was safe. Once again - it's the same basis as the double-steal and Bengi Molina plays, which you agreed with.

Manny, in the situation at third base he didn't get back to 3rd...he was not touching. IF he was touching it, then yes the following runner is out because the preceding runner is entitled to the base when both are touching it. You agreed with me on the two situations I posted about the force being relieved and the double-steal, which use the same basis as the situation at third base tonight in the Jays/Yankees game. Yet in that situation at third base you're looking at it differently. It's the same thing. 3rd base was un-occupied when R1 reached it. He can have it UNTIL R3 returns to it because R3 is entitled to it - if both are standing on the base.

I agree with you... Similar to this one....R1/R2, 0 out. Batter hits the ball directly to the first baseman, he steps on first to take off the force and throws to second to try and get R1. R1 beats the throw, and is standing on 2nd base. BUT Bengi Molina is R2 and has not reached 3rd base yet, so you're now going to call R1 out because he's not allowed to be on 2nd base yet? I don't think so! Another example,R1/R2, double-steal, catcher throws to second to try and get the trailing runner. I don't care if R2 has reached third base yet or not. That is irrelevant. The entitlement situation only comes into play if both runners end up on the same base.

Yes, R3 has legal right to the third base, but he can only exercise that right if he is touching it. The way I see it, you could tag R1, and he's safe...then R3 comes back to the base and is touching it, now you touch R1 and he's out. This may be simplifying it too much but I see it as follows: You're only entitled to a base when you've legally advanced to it and are standing on it, the base doesn't mean a whole lot if you're not standing on it. You're no longer entitled to that base once you're not standing on it, or you're forced off of it.

So in your version, let's say it's 2-out - R3 is halfway between home and third while R1 is standing on 3rd base. You're saying that if the defence ignores R3 and tags R1 at any point before R3 touches the plate, he's out?

Agreed, that's how I think it played out as well. The Blue Jays broadcasters were trying to use 7.01 to say that Reyes was still entitled to the base and that's why Lawrie was out when tagged.

Check it out for yourself: http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30759829 (wanted to post the link not have a window try and open up....)

After I started this thread, former catcher Gregg Zaun showed it between innings and he agreed with my interpretation of it. That the umpire thought R3 was still touching the bag when R1 was touched - hence he called R1 out, then saw R3 tagged while off the bag and called him out too.

Hopefully MLB.com posts the video later as one of their oddity-type plays.

No, R1 never left the base once he touched it. He was tagged while standing on the bag.