- 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
0
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:51 am to KidCreole
The real time judgment call was out. They should have stayed with that.
Instead they let the SC coach come in during the break between innings and mind trick them into changing the call.
They they say it is “non reviewable”. After they just reconsidered/reviewed and changed the “judgment” call 5 minutes later.
Instead they let the SC coach come in during the break between innings and mind trick them into changing the call.
They they say it is “non reviewable”. After they just reconsidered/reviewed and changed the “judgment” call 5 minutes later.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:55 am to ItTakesAThief
Wonder after watching video, the umpire crew realized they hosed the call, reached out an apologized to JJ
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:58 am to KidCreole
What seems to not be understood my most people as they argue the semantics is the intent of the rule. The rule has nothing to do with the base runner.
The catcher interfered with the batter preventing him from swinging. If this was a hit and run play with a runner at 1st, the catcher can't step in front of the plate (batter) and catch the ball before it passes home plate. It prevents the batter from swinging and getting a chance to hit. It also causes a balk on the pitcher.
The call was correctly applied.
The catcher interfered with the batter preventing him from swinging. If this was a hit and run play with a runner at 1st, the catcher can't step in front of the plate (batter) and catch the ball before it passes home plate. It prevents the batter from swinging and getting a chance to hit. It also causes a balk on the pitcher.
The call was correctly applied.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 6:58 am to Neilfish
No way. Umpires meet, get their story straight and whether true or not they will ride it out forever, even if totally wrong
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:05 am to Trauma14
quote:
What seems to not be understood my most people as they argue the semantics is the intent of the rule. The rule has nothing to do with the base runner. The catcher interfered with the batter preventing him from swinging. If this was a hit and run play with a runner at 1st, the catcher can't step in front of the plate (batter) and catch the ball before it passes home plate. It prevents the batter from swinging and getting a chance to hit. It also causes a balk on the pitcher. The call was correctly applied.
No you fricking dumbass. The batter vacated the batters box therefore catcher’s interference and all the other BS is null and void. So take your contrarian arse out and STTDB.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:06 am to 3amigosanddad
According to the rules the batter can leave early if the catcher leaves his position to make a play
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:07 am to Trauma14
I don’t agree with this on this play. The batter clearly vacated the box and gave himself up. I don’t understand how you can ignore such an important part of the play.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:09 am to Speckled
At this point does it really matter?
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:19 am to KidCreole
My guess is the home plate ump didn’t know the rule and the USC coach told him and he overturned himself. That ump seemed like a moron so it wouldn’t surprise me. 
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:25 am to StadiumDormNEZ72
quote:
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.
Thats the maddening part. Brady played it perfectly.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 7:30 am to KidCreole
The game is clear in my mind brazwell is the boss and milam is just a figment of our imagination he is to little to be in the sec tourament or division 5a base ball !
Posted on 5/26/24 at 10:08 am to timm6971463
The refs should just be glad that Milam fixed their screw-up. Effectively it didn’t cost LSU the game so they will be relatively off the hook.
They ought to collectively stay away from the SC coach as his whole internet was to manipulate the umps and cause a rule issue instead of really trying to play baseball.
They ought to collectively stay away from the SC coach as his whole internet was to manipulate the umps and cause a rule issue instead of really trying to play baseball.
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 10:09 am
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:15 pm to KidCreole
WOW!?!
THE 1ST KEY/MAJOR CONDITION - WITH OR "WITHOUT POSSESSION OF THE BALL" - FOR THE RULE & RULING TO APPLY.........
AND NO (TIGER FAN ON TIGER FORUM) ONE SEES OR CARES TO COMMENT - DESPITE IT'S SLAM DUCK ARGUMENT/PROOF IN FAVOR OF LSU!?!
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:27 pm to KidCreole
Again.....according to UMP & RULE.......it does not matter if he STEPPED ON OR IN FRONT OF PLATE........IF HE HAS POSSESSION OF THE BALL!!
HE CLEARLY HAD POSSESSION.........SO EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE RULE & RULING IS KAPUT!?!
MAJOR/CRITICAL CONDITION........AND NO ONE MENTIONS OR CARES!?
AS A TIGER FAN I WAS JUST TRYING TO LEARN, BE EDUCATED. CAME TO THE WRONG PLACE I GUESS.
HE CLEARLY HAD POSSESSION.........SO EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE RULE & RULING IS KAPUT!?!
MAJOR/CRITICAL CONDITION........AND NO ONE MENTIONS OR CARES!?
AS A TIGER FAN I WAS JUST TRYING TO LEARN, BE EDUCATED. CAME TO THE WRONG PLACE I GUESS.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:27 pm to HighRoller
quote:
According to the rules the batter can leave early if the catcher leaves his position to make a play
Yes, he CAN leave the batter’s box, but that also nullifies catcher interference. Rule 6.01(g) doesn’t specify batter position but the rules on catcher interference do specify it. Since the intent of the rule is to prevent interfering with the batter, his abandoning any attempt to swing or bunt should nullify catcher interference.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:29 pm to KidCreole
quote:
HE CLEARLY HAD POSSESSION.........SO EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE RULE & RULING IS KAPUT!?!
The question isn’t whether he ever gained possession of the ball, it’s whether he was on or in front of the plate BEFORE he gained possession.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:33 pm to MikeTheTiger71
He was definitely never on the plate before catching the ball. And every replay I saw showed his foot wasn't in front of the plate either.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:40 pm to Doctor K
quote:
Where was the infraction?
It upset the SC manager.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:49 pm to KidCreole
What you are missing is that they are spinning it and spinning it hoping that everyone forgets that they are wrong about the facts
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News