- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 3 Facts about disputed play at home
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:29 pm to LSUStar
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:29 pm to LSUStar
Here is my point of contention - what defines “in front of plate”?
Is it any part of the foot is closer to the pitcher’s mound than any part of the plate? - then he was in front of the plate.
Is it any part of his foot is closer to the base the runner is coming from than any part of the plate? Then he WAS NOT in front of the plate.
Very frustrating, but at least we won, and at least it’s not an NCAA Tourney elimination game.
Is it any part of the foot is closer to the pitcher’s mound than any part of the plate? - then he was in front of the plate.
Is it any part of his foot is closer to the base the runner is coming from than any part of the plate? Then he WAS NOT in front of the plate.
Very frustrating, but at least we won, and at least it’s not an NCAA Tourney elimination game.
1
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:14 pm to 4EverATiger12345
quote:
Rule 7 d. 1) d) gives an exception when a batter may step out with no penalty: A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at ANY base.
While true, it is also true that catcher interference can only be called if the batter is legally in the batter’s box. The batter had abandoned the box by the time Neal encroached upon the home plate area. Whether he touched the plate or his toe was in front of the plate should be irrelevant since there was no batter legally in the box to be interfered with.
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 5/30/24 at 4:41 pm to Tiger Phil
If the call is not made at the time it cannot be made in hindsight.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 5:29 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
While true, it is also true that catcher interference can only be called if the batter is legally in the batter’s box. The batter had abandoned the box by the time Neal encroached upon the home plate area. Whether he touched the plate or his toe was in front of the plate should be irrelevant since there was no batter legally in the box to be interfered with.
I went back after reading your post and you are absolutely correct that the batter was 100% out of the box before Neal received the ball. I believe the fact that this was "Not Reviewable" is the whole problem here. The umps might have made different call had that been an option. Or they could have made a better explanation for the call which I have not seen. The SEC Official on the press conference did not answer the questions as to why this call and not something else.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 6:03 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
I believe the fact that this was "Not Reviewable" is the whole problem here . . [t]he SEC Official on the press conference did not answer the questions as to why this call and not something else.
This has always been a problem with things being "not reviewable". If a situation occurs which should result in a call that is reviewable, but instead the ref/ump calls something that isn't reviewable, then that eliminates the opportunity to review the call you missed? That's bs.
The issue of the batter jumping out should have been reviewable but wasn't because instead they called catcher's interference, which is the only thing that would make the entire play unreliable. Very bs.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News