Did they say that crews from Lsu has hit safely in all 70 games this year? That can’t be right can it
Yes that must have been it, according to further internet seachingDid they say that crews from Lsu has hit safely in all 70 games this year? That can’t be right can it
Maybe they said reached safely? His on-base percentage is an incredible .570.
last year my son's high school league had 5 pitchers that could sit in the 90's. It was crazy.Doesn’t seem that long ago that you would see 1-2 pitchers per team topping out in the low 90s in the CWS. Now it seems each team has an entire staff of guys in the mid-90s
What rule?That's the dumbest rule in the history of sports. It makes absolutely zero sense and they could probably call it on every single play.
The runner has to be in the running lane while running to first for any play where a throw may be coming from in front of home plate (or any angle where the runner could interfere with a clear path throw to first base). The runner will only be called out if he is outside the lane and the throw/catch ability is hindered by him being outside the lane. I assume they deemed the runner was outside the running lane and interfered with the 1B's ability to catch the thrown ball. I was watching with the sound off and I didn't see the entire play so I didn't get the commentary or analysis. From what I saw I thought it was a bad call but that doesn't make this a dumb rule. The rule is very clear that the runner must run inside the running lane and if he doesn't he runs the risk of being called out if he interferes with the ability to catch a thrown ball. The judgement of "interfering with the ability to catch a thrown ball" is where the issue comes in. The rule is not dumb and has a very specific purpose. It outlines where a runner can run and not be in danger of being ruled out for interference. It is supposed to protect the runner and give them a place to run freely without risk of being called out.What rule?That's the dumbest rule in the history of sports. It makes absolutely zero sense and they could probably call it on every single play.
This is runner's interference and an automatic out, according to the rule.
The problem as always is when can the runner leave the lane to actually touch the base. This why I actually like the safety first bases tbh.The runner has to be in the running lane while running to first for any play where a throw may be coming from in front of home plate (or any angle where the runner could interfere with a clear path throw to first base). The runner will only be called out if he is outside the lane and the throw/catch ability is hindered by him being outside the lane. I assume they deemed the runner was outside the running lane and interfered with the 1B's ability to catch the thrown ball. I was watching with the sound off and I didn't see the entire play so I didn't get the commentary or analysis. From what I saw I thought it was a bad call but that doesn't make this a dumb rule. The rule is very clear that the runner must run inside the running lane and if he doesn't he runs the risk of being called out if he interferes with the ability to catch a thrown ball. The judgement of "interfering with the ability to catch a thrown ball" is where the issue comes in. The rule is not dumb and has a very specific purpose. It outlines where a runner can run and not be in danger of being ruled out for interference. It is supposed to protect the runner and give them a place to run freely without risk of being called out.What rule?That's the dumbest rule in the history of sports. It makes absolutely zero sense and they could probably call it on every single play.
This is runner's interference and an automatic out, according to the rule.
It shouldn't be called on every play. For example, a ground ball to the 2B will not be affected by the runner so they can run where ever they want.
The runner has to be in the running lane while running to first for any play where a throw may be coming from in front of home plate (or any angle where the runner could interfere with a clear path throw to first base). The runner will only be called out if he is outside the lane and the throw/catch ability is hindered by him being outside the lane. I assume they deemed the runner was outside the running lane and interfered with the 1B's ability to catch the thrown ball. I was watching with the sound off and I didn't see the entire play so I didn't get the commentary or analysis. From what I saw I thought it was a bad call but that doesn't make this a dumb rule. The rule is very clear that the runner must run inside the running lane and if he doesn't he runs the risk of being called out if he interferes with the ability to catch a thrown ball. The judgement of "interfering with the ability to catch a thrown ball" is where the issue comes in. The rule is not dumb and has a very specific purpose. It outlines where a runner can run and not be in danger of being ruled out for interference. It is supposed to protect the runner and give them a place to run freely without risk of being called out.What rule?That's the dumbest rule in the history of sports. It makes absolutely zero sense and they could probably call it on every single play.
This is runner's interference and an automatic out, according to the rule.
It shouldn't be called on every play. For example, a ground ball to the 2B will not be affected by the runner so they can run where ever they want.
Agreed. They could have just made the running lane on the other side of the foul line and not had to worry about veering last minute adding extra judgement into the call. I believe the reasoning behind it originally was to give a throwing lane to 1B for bunts (which would be in fair territory). But it leads to more controversy.I think it's dumb to require the runner to be in foul territory while the base itself is entirely in fair territory,