cooperstown

Big time congrats to Cougars freshman squad as well, as they started out the season slowly then finished the second half of season playing some first rate baseball.

The better team won and proved they are unquestionably the best team in the Ninth Region. They are fundamentally solid in all areas of the game - pitching, hitting, defense, and base running - and are obviously well coached. They are legitimate contenders for the state title. Can't say I'm all that accustomed to rooting for Highlands, but it would be nice to see a team from Northern Kentucky win it all. Good luck Birds.

Always lurking.

Equally impressive play by Ryle 3Bman Jake Puthoff, as he conjures up images of Brooks Robinson when he dives to his right, spins on the ground, and comes up throwing a dart to beat the batter-runner by a step.

3-5 innings = 1 day rest 6 innings= 2 days rest 7-9 innings = 3 days rest 1 pitch = 1 inning No more than 9 innings in a day Maximum of 15 innings in a week

I don't suppose anyone who actually attended the game could provide some details? :sssh:

That's okay. I may be eating some crow myself about insisting fielder can't be in base path at all without the ball and runner gets "full access" (I made that one up!) to bag without being impeded. Live and learn. And I like to think I know baseball rules fairly well.

Okay, works for me. Though I will have to look it up myself just to be certain the verbiage in the "......" you failed to identify isn't somehow critical. I know you well enough to know you will lie like a rug to win a baseball rules argument. :sssh:

Everything I read online references the runner's right to an "unobstructed path to a base" and a fielder without the ball failing to offer this is committing obstruction. I would most certainly say that Hart obstructed his path while without possession. Love debating this stuff. Probably need to get a life.

What does it say that refutes "full access"? Does it specifically state that "partial access" is sufficient? If so, how does one define partial access and when has someone not allowed enough "partial access"? I don't think a fielder has any right to be in the baseline and impede the runner in any way unless they own the ball. So to me, that means the runner owns the base path and should have full access to the base and not be hindered in any manner. Will have to go through some of my stuff tonight to find some clarification. Unless you can do it for me. :lol2:

I do not have a rulebook in front of me, but I do not believe the fielder has any right to be in the base path and impede/hinder the runner's advancement to the base in any way unless he has possession of the ball. Therefore, at least to me, the runner is afforded "full access" (my words) to the base without having to alter his attempt to advance to the base whatsoever. Having to slide in between someone's legs (who were closing down rapidly) who does not have possession of the ball is not providing access. Do you have a casebook that more clearly defines "access'? That starts to become a very tough judgemental call if fielders can block "some access" or a "portion of the base" or "impede the runner just a little bit". Therefore, I conclude (perhaps wrongfully) that the runner gets "full access" to the bathpath until such time as the fielder possesses the ball. Then the fielder can lay down in front of the base if he wants.

Not in the NFHS (High School) rulebook. If you have found that wording in that rulebook, please let me know where. I'm a rules nut and would love to see it. But I am 99.99% confident that particular wording is NOT in there. They have to be in possession of the ball. Period. Not in process of catching or waiting on a throw. Actual possession. But always willing to learn and admit my mistakes (plenty of practice), so please let me know if you have an actual rule cite. Thanks.

I'd love to see Raizor and/or Doty throw some tonight. Saw them both at the JV level this year and both are good. As in very good. They are already varsity-quality pitchers and are going to be a force for Highlands for the next few years.

Minimal gap, major gap. Doesn't matter. He's in the base path without the ball. I understand where you're coming from though. But he just can't be where he is, legs spread wide or otherwise.

That's not the rule either. The runner has right to the FULL base path unless the fielder has possession of the ball. He cannot be impeded or his path altered in any manner. A catcher allowing some minimal gap between his legs for the runner to slide through is not sufficient and still qualifies as obstruction.