View Full Version : Question about Cano's baserunning
Matt Williams
10-10-2005, 10:30 PM
Why was Cano called out on interference? I understand having to "run inside the box", but considering the box is on the outside of the foul line and the base is on the inside, how is this possible? It's not like Cano changed direction to try to interfere.
You are supposed to run in foul territory, and touch the bag with your left foot when running out a single. You cannot have your body in fair territory. It's just another example of poor fundamentals coming from the $200M dollar baseball team. Dumbest players $$ can buy.
Matt Williams
10-10-2005, 10:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to run in foul territory, and touch the bag with your left foot when running out a single. You cannot have your body in fair territory. It's just another example of poor fundamentals coming from the $200M dollar baseball team. Dumbest players $$ can buy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Gee can you make it more obvious who you are rooting for? Even McCarver said that if Cano was outside the line, it would have interfered more than the way he ran.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to run in foul territory, and touch the bag with your left foot when running out a single. You cannot have your body in fair territory. It's just another example of poor fundamentals coming from the $200M dollar baseball team. Dumbest players $$ can buy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Gee can you make it more obvious who you are rooting for? Even McCarver said that if Cano was outside the line, it would have interfered more than the way he ran.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what? McCarver would only say something like that to make it look like the Angels got away with something.
Go to your local baseball fields and consult a little-leaguer about the rule, if you are further perplexed.
GuyOnTilt
10-10-2005, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Go to your local baseball fields and consult a little-leaguer about the rule, if you are further perplexed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, STFU. Seriously.
GoT
Matt Williams
10-10-2005, 11:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go to your local baseball fields and consult a little-leaguer about the rule, if you are further perplexed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, STFU. Seriously.
GoT
[/ QUOTE ]
I love how you can't have an intelligent conversation about a Yankee game with a Yankee hater. Had Cano been 2 feet inside or changed his running path, I wouldn't even be asking this question. But it looks to me that as soon as Cano struck out, he just ran down the line as fast as he could.
GuyOnTilt
10-10-2005, 11:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go to your local baseball fields and consult a little-leaguer about the rule, if you are further perplexed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, STFU. Seriously.
GoT
[/ QUOTE ]
I love how you can't have an intelligent conversation about a Yankee game with a Yankee hater. Had Cano been 2 feet inside or changed his running path, I wouldn't even be asking this question. But it looks to me that as soon as Cano struck out, he just ran down the line as fast as he could.
[/ QUOTE ]
The throw went exactly where it should've. Erstad was set up outside which is completely wrong and Cano probably didn't want a collision and so shifted his path slightly toward the inside. It should've been a no-call IMO, and I don't care too much who wins this game but have found myself rooting against the Yankees slightly for some reason. If the 1B sets up outside it's his own damn fault if he's not able to make a play on the ball.
GoT
ThaSaltCracka
10-10-2005, 11:19 PM
nice assesment GoT, I agree completely.
Matt Williams
10-10-2005, 11:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
nice assesment GoT, I agree completely.
[/ QUOTE ]
So do I. That was the whole reason I asked. Obviously on a play like A-Rod did last year would be called interference, but w/ Cano I wasn't sure.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go to your local baseball fields and consult a little-leaguer about the rule, if you are further perplexed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, STFU. Seriously.
GoT
[/ QUOTE ]
hell no. The guy is asking about a rule that 4 year olds know. As if the ump made a bad call?? This is supposed to be a rookie of the year candidate and he runs in the base path?
The catcher doesn't care where he sets up... he just throws it down. Your logic is silly. The rule is the rule. The defense did nothing wrong there. Calling that a "non-call" in a game this important is ridiculous.
If Cano is in foul territory and the catcher hits him in the back, Cano is safe, and it's Molina's "fault" for not catching the ball smoothly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nice assesment GoT, I agree completely.
[/ QUOTE ]
So do I. That was the whole reason I asked. Obviously on a play like A-Rod did last year would be called interference, but w/ Cano I wasn't sure.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cano has no EFFING clue where the catcher is, nor should he care. He needs to worry about running in the basepath. You're talking as if Cano knowingly ran in fair territory to make it easier on Molina. Jeez. Cano effed up. That's it. No excuse for not knowing fundamentals. Especially at this level, in a game this important.
ThaSaltCracka
10-10-2005, 11:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The catcher doesn't care where he sets up... he just throws it down.
[/ QUOTE ] this is one of the dumbest things I have heard in the sports forum in a long time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The catcher doesn't care where he sets up... he just throws it down.
[/ QUOTE ] this is one of the dumbest things I have heard in the sports forum in a long time.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's the thrower's job to get it to the bag, the first sacker needs to be in position to catch it, not vice versa. The catcher doesn't go "Well erstad is set up inside, but Cano is in my path, oh well I'll just bean him."
Instead its Erstad who needs to think "I gotta give Bengie a wide target here and catch the ball.", not "I'm settin' up inside, and if Benjie throws it outside, well F him."
GuyOnTilt
10-10-2005, 11:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The catcher doesn't care where he sets up... he just throws it down.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely absolutely false. The call is INSIDE-INSIDE on those plays. The catcher's job is to throw a catchable ball INSIDE the base path. There's absolutely no question about it. None.
[ QUOTE ]
If Cano is in foul territory and the catcher hits him in the back, Cano is safe
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. That's why correctly trained and coached catchers and 1B know the throw should always go inside on dropped third strikes and bunts or grounders in front of the plate.
GoT
ThaSaltCracka
10-10-2005, 11:48 PM
Yeah, dude is a dipshit.
technologic
10-11-2005, 12:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to run in foul territory, and touch the bag with your left foot when running out a single. You cannot have your body in fair territory. It's just another example of poor fundamentals coming from the $200M dollar baseball team. Dumbest players $$ can buy.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes cause money really bought cano...
Matt Williams
10-11-2005, 12:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
yes cause money really bought cano...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you know, he is making $20 mil as a rookie. Imagine how much he'll be making in 5 years?
Not to mention the fact that in sports your current salary has nothing to do with your current production.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 12:07 AM
Yeah, actually I don't think Estad catches the throw even if Cano is in foul territory. But it wasn't a bad call by the ump. Cano was a little bit inside the field of play. Like I said in the other thread, if it's Jeter, I don't think the ump makes the call.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 12:13 AM
Watch the catcher next time on such plays. If it's a bunt, or swinging bunt, out in front of the plate, the catcher will go towards the pitcher's mound before making the throw, so as to throw it around the runner. If it's not a close play, on a passed ball or wild pitch, the catcher will throw it from behind the plate, which give a good angle to not hit the runner.
But in this case, the ball squirted out to a place such that Molina had no angle, and, since Cano is relatively fast, no time to adjust. So he did the best he could. It's very rare for an umpire to make that call when Cano was just, if anything, a few inches inside the line in fair territory. Cano should have run right into Erstad because Erstad was set up in foul territory. Like I said, if it's a veteran, say, Jeter, who had run the same route, I don't think the call is made. (Same thing with the error on Cano the other night when he took his foot off the bag ahead of A-Rod's throw.)
Sometimes you see a play and a guy is flagrantly in fair territory and you know if the throw hits him he's going to be called out. You rarely see this play called by the ump unless the throw hits the runner because if it doesn't hit him, where's he's running usually doesn't interfere with the throw.
People are also forgetting that no run would have scored on the play. The Yankees would have had bases loaded with two out and Williams, who wasn't swinging the bat very well, coming up. Obviously they'd love to have had the opportunity. What killed the inning was Sheffield and Matsui not being able to do anything after the first two guys got on base.
pokerdirty
10-11-2005, 12:21 AM
The Cano Baserunning Flub is the new A-Rod Slap.
momentum killers.
ThaSaltCracka
10-11-2005, 12:23 AM
Andy, aside from the great post, you are wasting your breath.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes cause money really bought cano...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you know, he is making $20 mil as a rookie. Imagine how much he'll be making in 5 years?
Not to mention the fact that in sports your current salary has nothing to do with your current production.
[/ QUOTE ]
A-Rod and Jeter combine for like $44M per year. Yet neither one (especially CAPTAIN JETER) is wise enough to make sure rookies know how to "play the game the right way--like a true YANKEE". LOLOL.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 12:30 PM
Yeah, they should have reminded him, by the way, when you strike out, and the ball gets away from the catcher, run an inch or two to the right of where you might just in case the umpire makes an arguable call against you.
In forty-five years, I've never seen that call made unless the ball hits the runner. And I've never seen that call made when it's questionable whether the runner was inside the line or not, as Cano was only when there's no question the batter was running in fair territory.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The catcher doesn't care where he sets up... he just throws it down.
[/ QUOTE ] this is one of the dumbest things I have heard in the sports forum in a long time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Although it may have been stated better, the fact of the matter is that the throw was to the inside of the bag. This supports K-Steel's point. The defense is entitled to the inside in which to make the throw. It is a fundamental rule that the runner shall stay on the outside of the line.
Just because Erstad set up incorrectly does not change the rule. If the throw was to the outside (and thus there would be literal interference, but not interference by rule) the defense assumes the risk ... that is the runner's territory.
The rule is enforced at all levels of the game, it is enforced throught the MLB season. When I watched the play, first thing I though was runner's interference. Whether Cano changed to avoid where he "thought" the throw was heading is irrelevant: He ran on the inside, the throw was on the inside - that is interference.
Whether you agree with the rule is not the issue. In reality, the play would have been fundamental had Erstad set up where he was supposed to.
A professional athelete has little excuse for not doing the "little" things right. Cano should have been running outside of the line.
fnurt
10-11-2005, 01:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they should have reminded him, by the way, when you strike out, and the ball gets away from the catcher, run an inch or two to the right of where you might just in case the umpire makes an arguable call against you.
In forty-five years, I've never seen that call made unless the ball hits the runner. And I've never seen that call made when it's questionable whether the runner was inside the line or not, as Cano was only when there's no question the batter was running in fair territory.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. This was a debatable call, a close one at best, and I can't believe people are talking like it makes Cano the retard of the year.
ThaSaltCracka
10-11-2005, 01:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Although it may have been stated better, the fact of the matter is that the throw was to the inside of the bag. This supports K-Steel's point. The defense is entitled to the inside in which to make the throw.
......
Whether you agree with the rule is not the issue. In reality, the play would have been fundamental had Erstad set up where he was supposed to.
[/ QUOTE ] his whole point was that the players don't set up for that throw in a particular spot, the catcher just throws it down there, which is simply not true, as you have pointed out.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes cause money really bought cano...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you know, he is making $20 mil as a rookie. Imagine how much he'll be making in 5 years?
Not to mention the fact that in sports your current salary has nothing to do with your current production.
[/ QUOTE ]
A-Rod and Jeter combine for like $44M per year. Yet neither one (especially CAPTAIN JETER) is wise enough to make sure rookies know how to "play the game the right way--like a true YANKEE". LOLOL.
[/ QUOTE ]
On behalf of Yankee haters that prefer not to act like douchebags, please go away.
brettbrettr
10-11-2005, 02:09 PM
If you guys stopped quoting K Steel then I'd really be able to ignore him.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they should have reminded him, by the way, when you strike out, and the ball gets away from the catcher, run an inch or two to the right of where you might just in case the umpire makes an arguable call against you.
In forty-five years, I've never seen that call made unless the ball hits the runner. And I've never seen that call made when it's questionable whether the runner was inside the line or not, as Cano was only when there's no question the batter was running in fair territory.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. This was a debatable call, a close one at best, and I can't believe people are talking like it makes Cano the retard of the year.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well he wasn't righteous, and it certainly didn't help much. The only thing worse here would have been for him to just throw his helmet off and walk away instead of even running down there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes cause money really bought cano...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you know, he is making $20 mil as a rookie. Imagine how much he'll be making in 5 years?
Not to mention the fact that in sports your current salary has nothing to do with your current production.
[/ QUOTE ]
A-Rod and Jeter combine for like $44M per year. Yet neither one (especially CAPTAIN JETER) is wise enough to make sure rookies know how to "play the game the right way--like a true YANKEE". LOLOL.
[/ QUOTE ]
On behalf of Yankee haters that prefer not to act like douchebags, please go away.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right...Cano made a quality Yankee-like play that will be remembered for years to come. Kudos to you for recognizing good baserunning by a rookie-of-the-year candidate.
[ QUOTE ]
If you guys stopped quoting K Steel then I'd really be able to ignore him.
[/ QUOTE ]
You'll be missing out on a lot of quality information if you ignore me. Don't do a disservice to yourself.
Matt Williams
10-11-2005, 02:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you guys stopped quoting K Steel then I'd really be able to ignore him.
[/ QUOTE ]
After his 2nd reply last night when I realized how stupid he was, I did decide to ignore him. It's great!
And here you are, a bald guy who had a great baseball career with both the Giants and D-Backs, asking silly questions about baseball?
You deserve to be harassed.
brettbrettr
10-11-2005, 03:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***
[/ QUOTE ]
K Steel, this is a first for me, replying to an ignore notice. But I noticed that you seem to be spending a lot of time ignoring people and even more notifying them. You might consider either:
1. Never posting again
2. Killing yourself
I, for one, have no preference but strongly think you choose at least one.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***
[/ QUOTE ]
K Steel, this is a first for me, replying to an ignore notice. But I noticed that you seem to be spending a lot of time ignoring people and even more notifying them. You might consider either:
1. Never posting again
2. Killing yourself
I, for one, have no preference but strongly think you choose at least one.
[/ QUOTE ]
wtf are you talking about? I don't ignore anyone and I obviously don't tell anyone I'm ignoring them... wtf are you saying?
Walter Pullis
10-11-2005, 03:16 PM
A broader thought about Cano. I have watched him all year and he has the potential to be a star, but still needs a lot of work on his hitting,fielding and running. I don't think that Torre should be fired over this, but I blame him a bit by not giving him more flake over his problems.
HajiShirazu
10-11-2005, 03:21 PM
Is the first baseman allowed to stand in foul territory and block the path of the runner attempting to cross first base?
ThaSaltCracka
10-11-2005, 03:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is the first baseman allowed to stand in foul territory and block the path of the runner attempting to cross first base?
[/ QUOTE ]not really, but Cano can knock him on his ass.
This was the case earlier this year when Rolen ran into HEE SEOP CHOI and dislocated his shoulder. lol.
Not a good idea.
ThaSaltCracka
10-11-2005, 03:37 PM
well, I didn't say it was a good idea, but he can do it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
andyfox
10-11-2005, 04:25 PM
Anyone think Erstad set up "wrong" so as to force Cano to run inside the line? Cano jumped left, it looked like, not to avoid the throw, which he couldn't have seen coming from behind him, but to avoid running into Erstad.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 04:28 PM
I agree. He was obviously not ready to play every day when they made him the starting second baseman, but Womack was so bad they had no choice. Despite his batting average, he had a very low OBP as he hardly walked. His fielding, I thought, was atrocious and I questioned, earlier this year, whether the Yankees could be a championship team with him playing second base. (I also questioned whether the Angels could win the championship with Figgins playing third. I still think it will come to haunt them.)
He does seem a little careless in everything he does, but perhaps that's just his demeanor. Like you, though, I'm optimistic he'll become a fine player. He's only 22.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 04:31 PM
Earlier this year is one thing. A do-or-die game is another. That's why I suggested above that perhaps Erstad deliberately stood where he was in foul territory, the "wrong" place.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone think Erstad set up "wrong" so as to force Cano to run inside the line? Cano jumped left, it looked like, not to avoid the throw, which he couldn't have seen coming from behind him, but to avoid running into Erstad.
[/ QUOTE ]
I almost wrote this question at the end of my initial post. I decided not to, (that Erstad was "baiting" Cano to run inside) because such a plan made no sense. There was no need to resort to trickery, as the throw was there in plenty of time ... Erstad just missed it. Furthermore, I cannot imagine the team would find any useful time to practice such a play.
I can understand that Erstad may have "intentionally" set up outside just because that seemed like the best line for the catcher to make his throw, but not to deke Cano into breaking the rule (Not to mention, they would be taking a huge risk that the rule would be 1) broken, and 2) enforced).
[ QUOTE ]
Earlier this year is one thing. A do-or-die game is another. That's why I suggested above that perhaps Erstad deliberately stood where he was in foul territory, the "wrong" place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Andy, maybe you recall: What was the circumstance in which the baserunner/batter was called out during Orel Hershiser's record - breaking streak? I am trying to recall the situtation. I think it was in the 9th or 10th inning against San Deigo and a run actually "scored" but was called back.
Was it an interference play? or was it a play where the bases were loaded and the batter did not move away from an inside pitch, allowing it to hit him?
[ QUOTE ]
Earlier this year is one thing. A do-or-die game is another. That's why I suggested above that perhaps Erstad deliberately stood where he was in foul territory, the "wrong" place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, Erstad is going to do that on the whim that the ump calls Cano out.
You are ridiculous. Erstad is a veteran, he's not going to do somethign stupid like that with so much on the line.
Cano EFFED up, admit it. Typical Yankee fan can't understand why they lose... have to blame someone else.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 05:03 PM
Here is the relevant rule:
The runner is out if "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that 'lane' but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot 'lane' or on the lines marking the 'lane'."
[emphasis added]
I'd have to see it again, but I thought Cano had his left foot on the line (that is, touching it, with his toes only to the left), not to the left of it, the whole way. He jumped to the left, into fair territory, only to touch the base. As the lane ends at the base, he cannot be considered outside the lane as he touches the base. And in any event, it's not clear to me that Cano was responsible for Erstad not catching the ball. I think Erstad just never saw the throw because of Cano.
I think I might reverse my judgment; I think the umpire might have gotten this one wrong.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 05:05 PM
"This is supposed to be a rookie of the year candidate and he runs in the base path?"
Isn't that where he's supposed to run?
andyfox
10-11-2005, 05:20 PM
Don't remember the play, sorry. I was at Dodger Stadium the night Don Drysdale threw his 6th consecutive shutout. The Giants had bases loaded in the 9th with hobody out and Drysdale hit Dick Dietz. (It was Drysdale's record that Orel broke.) The umpire wouldn't allow him to take his base, ruling, correctly in my judgment, that Dietz deliberately let the ball hit him without getting out of the way. Drysdale then got Dietz, and the next two, without a run scoring and preserved the shutout.
Your post above on the ruling was a good one. But I don't think Cano ran out of the lane. The rule states his feet must be in the lane or on the lines. I'm going by memory but I think his right foot was always in the lane and his left foot was always at least touching the line. That is, his toes might have been "over the line" but his foot was always at least touching the fair line.
Cano then darted to the left to avoid running into Erstad. As the lane ends at the base, his jumping to the left would not constitute being outside the lane. When I originally saw the play, and didn't know the exact language of the rule, I felt that, while somewhat ticky-tacky, the decision to rule interference on Cano was justified. Now I'm not so sure.
What I think happened is that Erstad just messed up and was set up in a spot where Molina couldn't get the ball to him. Generally speaking, on a ball behind the catcher, the first baseman will set up in foul territory, that being the best angle to avoid the throw from hitting the runner since the catcher is throwing from behind home plate. (My original proposal that Erstad might have set up there to create the appearance of interference seems wrong.) And he never saw the throw, being blocked out by Cano as the ball didn't go as far back behind the plate as it might have. He just missed it. It doesn't seem to me Cano interfered with Erstad taking the throw. In order for there to be interference Cano has to have run outside the lane and that act of running outside the lane had to interfere with Erstad handling the throw. I plead guilty to being a Yankee fan, but I honestly don't think either of those things happened.
If Cano darted to the left to hit the base, which he clearly did, how could he have been too far to the left to begin with?
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the relevant rule:
The runner is out if "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that 'lane' but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot 'lane' or on the lines marking the 'lane'."
[emphasis added]
I'd have to see it again, but I thought Cano had his left foot on the line (that is, touching it, with his toes only to the left), not to the left of it, the whole way. He jumped to the left, into fair territory, only to touch the base. As the lane ends at the base, he cannot be considered outside the lane as he touches the base. And in any event, it's not clear to me that Cano was responsible for Erstad not catching the ball. I think Erstad just never saw the throw because of Cano.
I think I might reverse my judgment; I think the umpire might have gotten this one wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember the replay vividly, Cano's entire left foot was to the left (inside) the foul like the whole way down the line.
It was a good call and you are not going to convince anyone otherwise.
Voltron87
10-11-2005, 06:59 PM
1. this is not canos fault. anyone who blames him is a moron, for lack of better words.
2. think of the conversation we'd be having if cano ran to the right of the bag and broke erstads ribs and gave him a concussion. that is what happens if cano runs a foot to the right of the line.
3. k steel= ban
[ QUOTE ]
Don't remember the play, sorry. I was at Dodger Stadium the night Don Drysdale threw his 6th consecutive shutout. The Giants had bases loaded in the 9th with hobody out and Drysdale hit Dick Dietz. (It was Drysdale's record that Orel broke.) The umpire wouldn't allow him to take his base, ruling, correctly in my judgment, that Dietz deliberately let the ball hit him without getting out of the way. Drysdale then got Dietz, and the next two, without a run scoring and preserved the shutout.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember when Orel broke the record in S.D., a situation came up where the run was erased due to a technical ruling. At the time, Vin told the same story you just did and noted the coincidence. I just can't recall the play, though.
andyfox
10-11-2005, 11:59 PM
It's simply not possible. If his left foot was outside the line the whole way, he would not have had to jump outside the line to get to the base; after all, Erstad was in foul territory: if Cano was in effect straddling the fair line, with his entire left foot to the left all the way down, he's got a clear path to the base.
And he certainly did not interfere with Erstad catching the ball. Erstad never saw the ball, that's why he didn't even attempt to catch it. The throw was right on the money, that's why Cano did not try to advance to second: Kennedy was right on the line and backed up the play perfectly.
So even if Cano's left foot was not touching the line, and I don't know if it was, no interference was called for because he did not interfere with the catching of the ball. And if his foot was touching the line, then there's not even a doubt about it.
All it takes to understand this is the ability to read the rules.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.