re: 3 Facts about disputed play at home

Did he even call a balk? I don't think so. Batter was awarded 1st base because of the interference call.

quote:

---

If Neal would have just stayed and caught the pitched ball, being the batter exited his batters box, it would have been strike 3, that steal home doesn't factor

---

only if Jay tells the umps the rules. Because they obviously didn't know them before they suited up today.

Player got saved from dumbest chance on that play. If he wasn’t on his own then coaches are crazy
Baseball 101 never steal home or squeeze with lefty at plate( who was obviously shocked to see him coming cause he moved out of the way

quote:

---

But it wasn’t a balk. Herring came set.

---

it's called a balk

copied and pasted from official NCAA rule book:

quote:

---

If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on
or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference

---

the balk actually has nothing to do with Herring's movements in this ruling.

Let me be clear. I’m not disagreeing with you. I have a couple questions as well

quote:

---

The catcher never stepped on the plate or in front of the plate before he caught the ball

---

“In front” of the plate I think is poorly defined. If someone would define it as any part of the foot “breaking the plane” of the most posterior part of the plate, then I can at least understand the call*



*the batter had 2 strikes and abandoned the box with both feet (he certainly gets one all the way out, and I think you can argue both). I would like SOMEONE to explain why this does not matter (why does something that occurred after not matter?)

I guess that if the batter abandons AND a ball is pitched then the call of strike occurs, and the argument is that there wasn’t a pitch because the catcher interfered (with an absent batter because of the weird interpretation of “in front of” the plate?

quote:

---

Even if it is a balk call or catcher’s interference, the runner still must touch home plate for the run to count. He went to the dugout after being tagged and never got close to the plate.

---

The umpire seemed sure of his, “eh, it doesn’t matter” but I am not sure he is correct. It is weird, though, because he was re-awarded AFTER being called out (which is the spirit of what he said) so he could maybe be referencing another set of rules that apply that I am unable to find.

The head of refs or whatever he is that was on TV said the runner didn't have to touch the base since he was awarded the tag up. I find that very suspect. If that's the case why would you have to touch all the bases on a homerun? And if that's the case then the runner on 3rd can just walk to the dugout when a balk is called.

quote:

---

Was it a throw or a pitch? What makes it a throw or a pitch?

---

If he's on the rubber throwing to home, it's a pitch. At least that is my understanding.

When you toe the rubber

Pitcher has to disengage or catcher has to move to a pitchout position in the other batter's box on a steal to home plate.

Neal went through the plate to catch. That's a balk. If the batter had swung. Even when he backs out it's still live. It sucks to get dicked on that call but it was correct.

So in closing, the pitcher baulked and gave up run, and Neal interfered which gave the batter 1st.

Here’s a 4th undisputed fact that is the biggest issue with the entire sequence.

The ump signaled out in real time and let the players run off the field



So the options at this point since he didn’t make the judgement call on the spot

1) heard another field umpires view/judgement (how the frick would they be able to see Neal’s toe maybe being a millimeter in front of the plate) or

2) he replayed it in his head after the SC coach complained and he overturned his own judgment call minutes after the play which is completely asinine and ridiculous

If it’s not challengeable and judgement call why can they change their minds minutes later? We deserve this answer

You are correct, Sir. This was my first post on here, but I hope my points were valid.