- 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: any florida players suspended for this weekend after brawl w/ FSU?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:26 pm to ell_13
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:26 pm to ell_13
I'm disagreeing here. I think the contact was instantaneous enough to the play on the ball that the batter-runner pretty clearly had an influence on the pitcher misplaying the ball. Just my opinion of course. Umpires obviously saw it how you did.
0
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:28 pm to ell_13
quote:
Don't lie. You would have been happy with the win.
Fa sho.
Let Florida St try that type of base running against a John Cohen coached team and see what happens.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:33 pm to Choupique19
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:37 pm to ell_13
Let me reiterate, there does not have to be contact to have an interference call. If a runner pauses in front of a shortstop to block his view on a groundball then runs to third at the last second, that can be called interference.
Most umpires would hesitate to call it with no contact because they aren't confident in the rules, but a college umpire shouldn't.
Not only is this purely an assumption on your part, but he is also clearly seen looking at the runner before going for the ball. Additionally, it's not the issue. The runner has a responsibility to yield. Not only did he not yield, but he moved towards the fielder. The timing of the play, the path of the runner, the actual interference.. It's all debatable. When the runner makes that small change in direction towards the fielder, he makes the call obvious and easy with minimal judgement necessary.
This is actually correct. My mistake.
Most umpires would hesitate to call it with no contact because they aren't confident in the rules, but a college umpire shouldn't.
quote:
The pitcher wasn't aware of where he was at the time the play should have been made.
Not only is this purely an assumption on your part, but he is also clearly seen looking at the runner before going for the ball. Additionally, it's not the issue. The runner has a responsibility to yield. Not only did he not yield, but he moved towards the fielder. The timing of the play, the path of the runner, the actual interference.. It's all debatable. When the runner makes that small change in direction towards the fielder, he makes the call obvious and easy with minimal judgement necessary.
quote:
batter-runner should be out yes, but the other runners would be returned to the last legally occupied base
This is actually correct. My mistake.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:39 pm to Choupique19
quote:He has failed to make the play at that point. He's fair game. I'm not saying the runner didn't move, but the collision would have happened regardless imo leading to the same result.
when a pitcher bobbles a ball a full step inside the foul line between home plate and first base that he now fair game to be run over?
If a runner attemps to steal second, but the throw is off up the baseline. When the shortop comes off the bag, where is the runner supposed to go as he attempts to dive forward? There's no opportunity to get the out; SS can't run over the runner to get to the ball, right?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:49 pm to ell_13
A throw to second on a steal not a batted ball play.
You still aren't seeing the point about interference not needing contact. The interference in this play occurs when he quickly veers into fair territory as he approaches the fielder making a play on the ball. In an umpire's view, that would be the cause. The fielder misplaying the ball would be the result, and reinforcing evidence that interference occurred.
You still aren't seeing the point about interference not needing contact. The interference in this play occurs when he quickly veers into fair territory as he approaches the fielder making a play on the ball. In an umpire's view, that would be the cause. The fielder misplaying the ball would be the result, and reinforcing evidence that interference occurred.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:49 pm to ell_13
I think the runner ran inside the line slightly to avoid contact, maybe he thought the pitchers momentum was gonna carry him to the outside of the line, especially if he fields it cleanly
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:50 pm to ell_13
quote:
He has failed to make the play at that point. He's fair game
Don't confuse runner interference with a runner being hit by a batted ball. Just because a ball is bobbled does not open a fielder up to contact. Is the player not allowed to pick a bobbled ball up and continue the play (Ibarra knows the answer to this).
What is the 3 foot line for outside of the first base foul line? That line is for the base runner. The runner belongs on the outside of the line. If we agree that the contact happened inside of the baseline, then it is runner's interference.
When I saw the video the first time through I didn't immediately think interference. I can see how an umpire would miss the call. But watching the replays, and seeing the slow motion replay from behind home plate, you can see the batter run as far as a step into the grass on the inside of the baseline.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:52 pm to ThePostman
Then we disagree that the runner's movement did anything to interfere as the play was being made
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:57 pm to redfieldk717
I know there is a 50% chance of thunderstorms Friday and Saturday . I will be there pulling for LSU and Pete Alonso for UF . Sorry gotta pull for him . I gave him hitting lessons for four years
Posted on 3/26/14 at 1:59 pm to TampaTiger22
quote:
I gave him hitting lessons for four years
Where's the hole in his swing? Come on brah, the Tigers need this weekend.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 2:01 pm to ell_13
Oh absolutely, but that's easy to do when we have the view of television cameras. I could see it going either way. It could've justified that he thought the play would carry the fielder past the foul line and into foul territory.
Had they called interference it was going to be because of his movement into fair territory, not the contact. That's all I really wanted to clarify. It can be called either way as long as the umpires have the right reasons to justify it.
I think if there hadn't been a "fight" after, UF's coach would have tried to make a case for interference.
Had they called interference it was going to be because of his movement into fair territory, not the contact. That's all I really wanted to clarify. It can be called either way as long as the umpires have the right reasons to justify it.
I think if there hadn't been a "fight" after, UF's coach would have tried to make a case for interference.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 2:04 pm to Choupique19
He doesn't have many , but hard in . Not 88 , I mean hard in
Posted on 3/26/14 at 2:15 pm to TampaTiger22
quote:
Not 88 , I mean hard in
That's cool, I think Nola has that pitch in his arsenol.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News