- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Umpire: "If the Catcher steps on or in front of plate WITHOUT POSSESSION of the Ball"!?!?
Posted on 5/25/24 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 5/25/24 at 10:28 pm
I do NOT know the intricate rules of Baseball. And though I was NOT @ the top of the class, I was taught English composition & grammar by Nuns, and no one escaped, passed or even failed without a pretty good knowledge of the subject.
But I must be missing something that I clearly heard (and misunderstand!?) the Umpire read & quote from the official rules in his attempt to explain, justify their ruling...... that neither HE - NOR ANYONE ELSE - has questioned or clarified that would seem to be of PARAMOUNT importance in judging, "following" & then applying the rule on the controversial play!?
Again, with my admitted limited knowledge, I'm sure I am missing something since no one has mentioned it. But after listening several times.....it would seem that for them to apply the rule correctly, and in order, that they would have to 1st Qualify/Decide as to whether the Catcher either Did or Did Not "Have Possession of the Baseball" before and/or during whether or if he stepped on or in front of the plate! And for them to justify their decision and then follow/apply the rule.......they would have to believe that "He DID NOT have possession of the Ball" - WHICH HE CLEARLY 100% DID!!
What am I missing or incorrectly hearing, interpretting?
But I must be missing something that I clearly heard (and misunderstand!?) the Umpire read & quote from the official rules in his attempt to explain, justify their ruling...... that neither HE - NOR ANYONE ELSE - has questioned or clarified that would seem to be of PARAMOUNT importance in judging, "following" & then applying the rule on the controversial play!?
Again, with my admitted limited knowledge, I'm sure I am missing something since no one has mentioned it. But after listening several times.....it would seem that for them to apply the rule correctly, and in order, that they would have to 1st Qualify/Decide as to whether the Catcher either Did or Did Not "Have Possession of the Baseball" before and/or during whether or if he stepped on or in front of the plate! And for them to justify their decision and then follow/apply the rule.......they would have to believe that "He DID NOT have possession of the Ball" - WHICH HE CLEARLY 100% DID!!
What am I missing or incorrectly hearing, interpretting?
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 1:12 am
10
Posted on 5/25/24 at 11:36 pm to KidCreole
Can no one clarify or explain this?
Posted on 5/25/24 at 11:46 pm to KidCreole
The reports at his press conference missed a big question…. Who called catcher’s interference? If you saw home plate then why did he call him out and sides switched. If say another official, how could they see definitively considering you can’t really tell from the camera and the ump was on top of it. Can’t be replay… it’s not reviewable. Has anyone actually asked this question? That would help a lot. Glad we won but going forward someone has to answer this.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:04 am to GeauxtigersMs36
This is the question I had from the beginning. If he truly saw it, he would have called it immediately. How would the other members of the crew seen anything from where they were.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:06 am to bengalmd
How did all the “smart journalist” miss the most glaring question?
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:14 am to GeauxtigersMs36
DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE A GLARINGLY, BLATANT PROBLEM WITH THE UMPIRES EXACT WORDS/QUOTE OF THE OFFICIAL RULE!?!
I have admitted above that I MUST be missing something!?!
But am I?
I have admitted above that I MUST be missing something!?!
But am I?
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:33 am to GeauxtigersMs36
quote:
the reports at his press conference missed a big question….
Who called catcher’s interference? If you saw home plate then why did he call him out and sides switched.
If say another official, how could they see definitively considering you can’t really tell from the camera and the ump was on top of it.
Can’t be replay… it’s not reviewable.
Has anyone actually asked this question? That would help a lot.
Glad we won but going forward someone has to answer this
This was the biggest snafu I've ever witnessed - someone needs to lose their position over this - totally unacceptable.
Umpires first indication was "out" immediately after the tag. THAT should be the result of the play because of 'unreviewability.'
And if it HAD been reviewed it would have shown to be the CORRECT call - and all the other bullshite calls wold have beeb reversed.
EVERY aspect of this snafu was all f'ed up.
Including the post game 'explanation'
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 1:38 am
Posted on 5/26/24 at 4:30 am to ChineseBandit58
They clearly reviewed or changed an unreviewable based off of the SC coaches request/interjection of the call. Changing a judgment calls minutes later is straight bs.
Also SC’s coach set up the scenario to confuse the ref’s/create an odd ruling to get a run. He should be criticized for that bs.
Also SC’s coach set up the scenario to confuse the ref’s/create an odd ruling to get a run. He should be criticized for that bs.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 4:56 am to KidCreole
Well the dumb ump should clarify what he did wrong! First we can read the damn rule. Show us what part of the rule he committed! I say none! 1) he caught the ball behind the plate2) he never stepped on or in front of home plate! Where was the infraction?
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:00 am to Doctor K
quote:
However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter
(1) steps outside the batter's box and he or his bat strikes the catcher.
(2) throws his bat at, and strikes, the catcher.
(3) uses his bat to intentionally strike the catcher on foul territory (tries to hit the catcher versus the pitch).
(4) swings, but does not strike the catcher, who is on foul territory.
(5) completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch.
(6) accidentally strikes the catcher with his bat during a practice swing while the pitcher prepares to pitch.
If not 1, then definitely 5.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:35 am to lsu711
The cases where I've seen this called properly the catcher is out in front of the plate without the ball with nowhere for the runner to access home plate as he's attempting to make his slide, or in some cases gonna try to truck the catcher.
None of that happened here.
None of that happened here.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:42 am to Jugular Joe
Weird that none saw it in real time, changed in after the fact.
The umps lost control of the game
The umps lost control of the game
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:48 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Weird that none saw it in real time, changed in after the fact.
The umps lost control of the game
That's the biggest problem I have with all of this.
That can't happen. Ever.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:49 am to KidCreole
My guess is that either the first or third base umpire saw his right foot (which was beside the plate) and in their judgment was also a bit past the front of the plate and called it. It’s very close on the replay.
Batter doesn’t have to remain in the box for Rule 6.01(g).
Batter doesn’t have to remain in the box for Rule 6.01(g).
Posted on 5/26/24 at 5:57 am to KidCreole
Didn't step on or in front of the plate as far as I could tell (there wasn't a close up shown of Bradys left knee and the plate shown).
Think the spirit of the rule is based on the catcher not interfering with the batter. His right foot was in the batters box but the batter vacated the box so not sure why it was deemed interference.
Does anyone know, if Griffin had time to step off and simple throw (as opposed to a pitch) it to Brady, would that rule have been applied?
Think the spirit of the rule is based on the catcher not interfering with the batter. His right foot was in the batters box but the batter vacated the box so not sure why it was deemed interference.
Does anyone know, if Griffin had time to step off and simple throw (as opposed to a pitch) it to Brady, would that rule have been applied?
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 5:59 am
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:07 am to KidCreole
Which ump made the call??? Home plate ump was not looking down.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:09 am to Honkus
The sec head umpire had a post game press conference and was asked this direct question and said no, had he stepped off, and made it a throw instead of a pitch, this rule would not have applied.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:31 am to Honkus
Thanks for this angle, from behind pitcher....I was really bothered by the camera angle from above and behind the plate... I don't have frame-by-frame shuttle, but slowing down to 0.25 speed, it appeared that the catcher's left knee was definitively IN FRONT of the plate, down the 3rd base line, and his entire lower leg (calf) is across the plate, BEFORE you hear the smack of ball-in-glove.... I had a screenshot that I was going to post (and piss a lot of people off , haha)-
But THIS angle clearly shows that his right foot is on one side of the plate and his left knee is BEHIND it on the other side, straddling but NOT on or blocking, when the ball can be definitively seen reaching his glove...
It almost looks like the catcher is aware of the "you can't block the plate" rule and placing his foot and knee to comply.
But THIS angle clearly shows that his right foot is on one side of the plate and his left knee is BEHIND it on the other side, straddling but NOT on or blocking, when the ball can be definitively seen reaching his glove...
It almost looks like the catcher is aware of the "you can't block the plate" rule and placing his foot and knee to comply.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:44 am to lsu711
quote:
f not 1, then definitely 5.
Right. The second the batter gives up his position as batter, then all bets are off as to what the catcher AND pitcher can or can’t do.
It’s the only logical application if the rules.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:46 am to Honkus
If the pitcher has started his delivery he has to just pitch the ball. If the runner breaks toward home when the pitcher comes set, usually the third baseman will yell step off, at that point pitcher steps off rubber and becomes a fielder. Left handed pitcher can’t see the runner so it gives runner a chance to get good jump
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 6:48 am
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News