Jump to content

Interesting Play

T-Rav

By T-Rav
in Situations

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4404 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

T-Rav

T-Rav

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok, so if we didn't get the out by judging F3 to have secure possession before the train wreck then I would have the RLV. Sounds right to me, thanks for all the answers. <br />

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

I'm leaning towards RLI myself. You said F2 had to throw above the BR so there you go.

UmpJM
UmpJM

My, my what a wide-ranging discussion...   My thoughts on the play in the OP.   1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been

ricka56
ricka56

@Matt I would agree in an OBR game, but Fed POE from a few years back wanted more RLI calls and removed quality throw as a requirement. My understanding is that Fed wants you to consider BR interferri

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted
If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.
Not as a rule.
BR was out of the runner's lane with a throw coming from behind him. BR has illegally taken away space for the throw to 1st. RLI Edit to add: That also protects the defense from any other runner's advancing on what may be a trainwreck after the fact.
  • Like 1
Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

 

 

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

Not as a rule.

 

BR was out of the runner's lane with a throw coming from behind him. BR has illegally taken away space for the throw to 1st. RLI

Edit to add: That also protects the defense from any other runner's advancing on what may be a trainwreck after the fact.

 

No, he didn't. If he had, they wouldn't have completed the throw successfully.

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

Not as a rule.

BR was out of the runner's lane with a throw coming from behind him. BR has illegally taken away space for the throw to 1st. RLI

Edit to add: That also protects the defense from any other runner's advancing on what may be a trainwreck after the fact.

No, he didn't. If he had, they wouldn't have completed the throw successfully.

I did not say he interfered with the actual throw. The BR ILLEGALLY took away space that the throw could have used.

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

Not as a rule.

 

BR was out of the runner's lane with a throw coming from behind him. BR has illegally taken away space for the throw to 1st. RLI

Edit to add: That also protects the defense from any other runner's advancing on what may be a trainwreck after the fact.

 

No, he didn't. If he had, they wouldn't have completed the throw successfully.

 

I did not say he interfered with the actual throw. The BR ILLEGALLY took away space that the throw could have used.

 

 

Good, because the rule states specifically that if he doesn't interfere with the throw, it's not interference.

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

BR illegally cut off part of the lane for F2 throwing to 1st. F2 made a throw around BR. BR should be in the runner's lane on that play

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

BR illegally cut off part of the lane for F2 throwing to 1st. F2 made a throw around BR. BR should be in the runner's lane on that play

 

Doesn't make it interference. Res ipsa loquitor. 

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

BR illegally cut off part of the lane for F2 throwing to 1st. F2 made a throw around BR. BR should be in the runner's lane on that play

Doesn't make it interference. Res ipsa loquitor.

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.
ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?
Yes, as I have said multiple times.

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

 

 

BR illegally cut off part of the lane for F2 throwing to 1st. F2 made a throw around BR. BR should be in the runner's lane on that play

Doesn't make it interference. Res ipsa loquitor.

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

 

Al, ... they got the out, this nullifies RLI ...however, ...the BR can still INTERFERE w/ F3 .....but that INT, is NOT (in and of itself) RLI

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

No, it says that a play is a requirement, not the only one.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

 

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

 

No, it says that a play is a requirement, not the only one.

 

THAT'S MATT'S 1000 POST!!!! :yippie:

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

 

Not as a rule.

 

Agreed.  He's liable for RLI.  And I'm going to be watching for RLI.  But there still has to be "I" for there to be RLI.

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

Not as a rule.

Agreed. He's liable for RLI. And I'm going to be watching for RLI. But there still has to be "I" for there to be RLI.

To hinder is part of the definition of INT in Rule 2. Making F2 throw around him, even getting an out is hindering.

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

If the BR is in fair territory with a throw coming from F2 just inside fair territory, FED wants RLI.

Not as a rule.

Agreed. He's liable for RLI. And I'm going to be watching for RLI. But there still has to be "I" for there to be RLI.

To hinder is part of the definition of INT in Rule 2. Making F2 throw around him, even getting an out is hindering.

If he got the out initially, he didn't hinder. If F3 drops the ball, bobbles it, whatever, and then gets the out, we have hindering.

Dash Riprock

Dash Riprock

Posted
Posted

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

  • Like 1
Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

 

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

 

No, it says that a play is a requirement, not the only one.

 

THAT'S MATT'S 1000 POST!!!! :yippie:

 

Yeah he's got 955 in this thread alone!

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

^^^THIS^^^

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...