- 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: Do the umps make this call at Alex Box?
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:41 am to josh336
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:41 am to josh336
Yeah, actually the rules are pretty clear.
The runner has to hit the dirt first for it to be a legal slide.
quote:
Catcher’s Positioning:
The catcher may not block the runner’s path to home plate unless they have possession of the ball or are in the act of receiving a throw (Rule 8-3-e).
quote:
If the runner attempts to avoid contact or slides legally but incidental contact occurs, it’s typically not malicious unless excessive force is used
The runner has to hit the dirt first for it to be a legal slide.
quote:
If the catcher illegally blocks the plate without the ball, obstruction is called, and the runner is usually awarded home (Rule 8-3-e). However, if the runner responds with malicious contact (e.g., intentionally slamming into the catcher), the malicious contact penalty supersedes, and the runner is out and ejected (Rule 5-15-a-1, Note).
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 8:45 am
2
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:41 am to AaronDeTiger
Terrible call by the umps. Runner let up and did not lunge into the catcher. Catcher is in the base line without the ball.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:43 am to CottonWasKing
I was watching last night. I give it to the Duck fans for holding their composure. Any SEC field would have been littered with bottles after that BS call.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:44 am to tke_swamprat
Nah tke, catcher was def in the act of receiving the ball, runners duty to avoid and he gets the call his way if the ball squirts away, which it did
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:44 am to josh336
quote:
Im smart enough to realize the ball was about to be possessed well before the runner got to the plate if not for the drop off the glove.
The rule doesn’t state that the defensive player can legally block the plate if he is “about” to possess the ball. It states, verbatim: “Defensive player cannot block a base without clear possession of the ball”.
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 8:46 am
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:44 am to Bacon84
quote:
I have no problem with the green base because it prevents unnecessary injury.
Can you name a single unnecessary injury that has ever occurred at first base? I’m sure it’s happened sometime, somewhere but statistically it wouldn’t register at 1/100,000th of a percent.
It’s just typical “safety overreach” from the soccer mom crowd.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:46 am to josh336
quote:
Nah tke, catcher was def in the act of receiving the ball,
“ball was about to be possessed”
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 8:48 am
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:47 am to KC Tiger
quote:
The rule doesn’t state that the defensive player can legally block the plate if he is “about” to possess the ball. It states, verbatim: “Defensive player cannot block a base without clear possession of the ball”. You may not like the rule, but the rule is what it is. For the officiating crew not to call obstruction, they had to take some editorial licensing with the rule.
100% correct. That may be one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen and it also impacts the next game.
How anyone can review that and come to that conclusion is malpractice. I can see possibly missing it in real time but the on filed guys got it right and the idiots on the booth are morons.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:47 am to AaronDeTiger
Cost them the game. It would have been real bad in BR
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:47 am to KC Tiger
Actually you may not like the rule….but:
Catcher’s Positioning:
The catcher may not block the runner’s path to home plate unless they have possession of the ball or are in the act of receiving a throw (Rule 8-3-e).
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:49 am to KC Tiger
quote:
The rule doesn’t state that the defensive player can legally block the plate if he is “about” to possess the ball. It states, verbatim: “Defensive player cannot block a base without clear possession of the ball”.
It does though
Rule 2-55 states the definition of obstruction as “the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.”
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:49 am to Open Your Eyes
Are you posting those shots thinking that the catcher wasn’t attempting to possess the ball?
It comes down to that, if yall want to act like he wasnt attempting to possess the ball…thats a tough argument to make, but go ahead and try
It comes down to that, if yall want to act like he wasnt attempting to possess the ball…thats a tough argument to make, but go ahead and try
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 8:50 am
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:51 am to josh336
I’m posting those screenshots knowing the catcher already failed, as in past tense, at possessing the ball.
“Attempting” to possess the ball
“Attempting” to possess the ball
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:52 am to Pepe Lepew
quote:
If it’s BS, please explain the rules
Did you not see them paste the rule on the screen in the video? I find it funny Oregon lost, but the rule says the player has to have clear control before he can block the bag and he was blocking it well before the ball got there.
On top of that, I didn’t see anything malicious with the slide. The catcher was partially in the right handers box and that’s about the same spot the runner started his slide. It’s not like he lowered his shoulder.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:55 am to YMCA
quote:
find it funny Oregon lost, but the rule says the player has to have clear control before he can block the bag and he was blocking it well before the ball got there.
See above rule about catchers right to try to possess the ball.
quote:
On top of that, I didn’t see anything malicious with the slide. The catcher was partially in the right handers box and that’s about the same spot the runner started his slide. It’s not like he lowered his shoulder.
Go back and review the definition of a slide and rewatch the play
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:55 am to Open Your Eyes
You can laugh about the rule if you want, they have been posted multiple times for you
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:57 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
I’m posting those screenshots knowing the catcher already failed, as in past tense, at possessing the ball.
“Attempting” to possess the ball
What are you expecting the catcher to do once the ball bounces off his glove? Realistically?
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:57 am to AaronDeTiger
I’ll tell you one thing. Charlie Hustle would’ve decapitated that kid back in the day.
But it seemed like a bad call if only for the fact the catcher was a good 18” down the third base line standing without the ball. What were the runners options? If he slides he’s two feet short. If he leaps, it’s probably an uglier collision. He runs around, and the ump hits him with leaving the base path.
But it seemed like a bad call if only for the fact the catcher was a good 18” down the third base line standing without the ball. What were the runners options? If he slides he’s two feet short. If he leaps, it’s probably an uglier collision. He runs around, and the ump hits him with leaving the base path.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:58 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
the catcher already failed, as in past tense, at possessing the ball.
I agree, an argument could be made that "in the act of receiving a throw" had already passed.
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 8:59 am
Posted on 5/31/25 at 8:59 am to lsuconnman
His option is to slide, like every other close play at the plate. If he beats the throw, obstruction will be called on the catcher. If not, he will be tagged out. Or the 3rd option, the catcher drops the throw and he slides in safely touching the plate with his hand.
This call happened 100% because of the lack of attempt at a slide until it was too late
This call happened 100% because of the lack of attempt at a slide until it was too late
This post was edited on 5/31/25 at 9:00 am
Page 2 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News