- 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: The game was called well.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 8:49 am to TopWaterTiger
Posted on 6/22/25 at 8:49 am to TopWaterTiger
quote:
I think DD said it best this morning:
“That’s one of those instances where I think technology works against the game. If we can slow it down to the point where we’re arguing whether or not a player is changing direction with intent while also disregarding the laws of physics (and momentum), I think we’ve lost the plot. But I digress..”
That's exactly right. My take on it, and against those who say "it was right by the letter of the rule", is that it was not, because the rule expects umpires/replay officials to decide intent, and that being the case, it cannot be said that there even is a rule. You can't just rule every single time a ball hits a part of a player's body that is moving, that it's intentional. Because who doesn't move when a ball is coming at their ribs? For that reason, it is very uncommon that we see a play like this ruled in such a way. And since it's all about umpires discretion, I think it was extremely poor judgment on whoever made that call, to assume intent of a player who appears to be making a very natural movement with a ball coming at him.
But if they're going to make this kind of call, then the rule absolutely must be clarified. Leave intent out of it, and only make a call if the hitter sticks his arm or leg clearly outward, well outside of the box. No ambiguity. If you hit a guy, it's your fault; don't care if the arm moved up or down, the batter has a right to his space.
0
Posted on 6/22/25 at 8:49 am to VerbalKint
You should always be able to get hit on purpose as long as you don’t lean over the plate to do so. That should be the rule. Because if you get hit off the plate who cares? It’s a ball anyway. The rule was written by a dumbass
Posted on 6/22/25 at 8:54 am to lsupride87
quote:I think this is what has most people aggravated. Intentionally getting hit should only apply inside the strike zone. also, the irony of a coach who has made getting hit a large part of his teams offense challenging a HBP call…
That should be the rule. Because if you get hit off the plate who cares? It’s a ball anyway
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:02 am to SelaTiger
I totally disagree with the intentional HBP call, but otherwise mostly well called.
On a play that's considering intent, you shouldn't use slow motion! That's not only ball four regardless of HBP or not, but it's also a bang-bang play that should be viewed in regular speed. He didn't "extend" his arm toward the ball, but he drops his arm inside the batters box while turning away from the ball which IS a natural motion!
He may have dropped that pad more than what's natural as protection, but he should be able to throw his whole arse backwards towards the ball INSIDE the batters box if he wants to. Is it extending your arm intentionally to get hit or an intentional motion to protect yourself with the pad like a shield instead of your forearm/wrist? TERRIBLE call in that situation!
It's not the rule but an interpretation of the rule that's just wrong!!!
On a play that's considering intent, you shouldn't use slow motion! That's not only ball four regardless of HBP or not, but it's also a bang-bang play that should be viewed in regular speed. He didn't "extend" his arm toward the ball, but he drops his arm inside the batters box while turning away from the ball which IS a natural motion!
He may have dropped that pad more than what's natural as protection, but he should be able to throw his whole arse backwards towards the ball INSIDE the batters box if he wants to. Is it extending your arm intentionally to get hit or an intentional motion to protect yourself with the pad like a shield instead of your forearm/wrist? TERRIBLE call in that situation!
It's not the rule but an interpretation of the rule that's just wrong!!!
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:02 am to cgrand
quote:
the irony of a coach who has made getting hit a large part of his teams offense challenging a HBP call…
That's because he's a huge pussy and his team takes after him
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:05 am to SelaTiger
Anybody who agrees with the call on the HBP should immediately be disregard on anything going forward lol
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:07 am to Cracking
quote:It’s the opposite.
It's not the rule but an interpretation of the rule that's just wrong!!!
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:09 am to MOT
quote:Please tell me how you got inside Dickinson head to know his intent?
MOT
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:11 am to SelaTiger
quote:
The Dickinson play was correct. He did move his elbow into it. It was frustrating at the time, but the correct call according to the rules.
That rule should not be enforceable with a three-ball count. When you throw a pitch and it's ball four anyway, being able to call the batter out is complete horse shite. They negated a walk just because the ball happened to hit him in the elbow. It's beyond stupid.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:16 am to saturncube21
quote:
Wrong-Dickinson didn’t lean into home plate
It wasn't intentional.
The brain takes about 100-150 milliseconds to process and become consciously aware of an action or event after it occurs.
The move was already made before his conscious brain became aware of it.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:17 am to TopWaterTiger
If it’s not a glaring lean in, and his movements at least appear to be evasive on a clear ball 4, whether you think he did it intentionally or not, you shouldn’t overturn. You give him the benefit of the doubt because he didn’t need to get beaned to get on base. It’s simple.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:17 am to SelaTiger
quote:
But as far as the rules go, it was correct. Should be changed in the rules.
Agree...my gripe is with the rule more than the call.... rule needs to be changed to reflect basic logic
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:17 am to scott8811
quote:
I don't care if he did or didnt.... that call shouldn't be reviewable when the pitch misses on a 3 ball count because getting hit/not hit is irrelevant. Since no advantage can be gained by getting hit on a ball on a 3 ball count it should be assumed the batter did not do it intentionally. Take your base, let play resume as it would have. Had the count been 2-2 id agree with it
Baseball doesn’t add variability to the rules like that
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:18 am to lsupride87
quote:Are you under the impression that someone other than Dickinson moved his elbow into the path of the pitch?
Please tell me how you got inside Dickinson head to know his intent?
The problem is the rule saying it’s a strike in all cases. If it’s off the plate then batters shouldn’t be awarded the base but it should still be a ball. If it’s over the plate it should be a strike.
And for everyone saying it wasn’t called this way at any other point in the CWS you need to watch the 9th inning of Murray State v Arkansas.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:19 am to scott8811
Another rule I’d like to see is a base awarded on an errant catch at first where the umpire hits the ball.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:21 am to SelaTiger
They called two guys out this week on the intentional. Neither one of the batters was obviously throwing themselves in front of it. I think the NCAA will make some changes this offseason on this. Nobody is intentionally trying to be hit on a 3-2 count on a pitch in the batters box. It’s a stupid rule that is bad for the game.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:22 am to ScootiniTiger
The rule states he cannot drop his arm to get hit. Stupid rule and has to change. If Dickerson bails out he walks. But if he bails out and the ball curves back in for a strike what's a player supposed to do. He hung in there until the last moments. The ball hit him, he did not hit the ball. Dumb arse rule
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:23 am to SelaTiger
quote:
The Dickinson play was correct. He did move his elbow into it.
He moved his elbow down instinctually to protect his ribs. Coastal does the same thing by turning into pitches to get their record HBP numbers. The audacity of their coach to even challenge that is insane
This post was edited on 6/22/25 at 9:28 am
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:24 am to saturncube21
quote:
Wrong-Dickinson didn’t lean into home plate
This wasn’t the ruling. He stuck his arm out to hit the ball. It was a mistake for him to do so. We can be fans and not blind as well.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:25 am to Demonbengal
quote:
Nobody is intentionally trying to be hit on a 3-2 count on a pitch in the batters box.
This is why the rule should be nullified on 3-2 counts.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News