(06-01-2014 10:49 AM)grol Wrote: I think Eric was right saying that if the runner hadn't been so Pete Rose-like aggressive the interference call wouldn't have been made.
True, but it doesn't make the call correct per the rules.
(06-01-2014 02:16 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote: From multiple accounts on Twitter, call was wrong and game should be over.
Pierce and SHS got hosed.
Are you basing your judgement off of Twitter, or have you seen that play? (The highlights are available with ESPN.com's game story).
I don't know the rules well enough to say the call was "right," but it certainly looks like an unnecessarily aggressive slide and a plausible interpretation of the rule by my reading. Seems to me that the runner should have realized it was a slow roller and simply given himself up since the throw was unlikely to be in time to first.
I was watching the game - explaining why I'm so freaking tired today (and I live on the West Coast).
Upon further reflection, it was probably a 50/50 call. Looked like the the runner went straight into the base but probably started his slide a little late. I will agree that I was an unnecessarily aggressively slide - but, as pointed out above, I'm not sure how relevant that is.
In that situation, I probably only make that call if you think the double play would have otherwise been turned - which it looked 90/10 like it would not have. I'm usually a "don't vary the call by the situation" guy, but this was about as a high leverage of a situation as you'll find.
By the way ... it's OK to be a TCU fan and still admit you got a break to win a game.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 11:43 AM by Orange County Owl.)
(06-01-2014 02:16 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote: From multiple accounts on Twitter, call was wrong and game should be over.
Pierce and SHS got hosed.
Are you basing your judgement off of Twitter, or have you seen that play? (The highlights are available with ESPN.com's game story).
I don't know the rules well enough to say the call was "right," but it certainly looks like an unnecessarily aggressive slide and a plausible interpretation of the rule by my reading. Seems to me that the runner should have realized it was a slow roller and simply given himself up since the throw was unlikely to be in time to first.
I was watching the game - explaining why I'm so freaking tired today (and I live on the West Coast).
Upon further reflection, it was probably a 50/50 call. Looked like the the runner went straight into the base but probably started his slide a little late. I will agree that I was an unnecessarily aggressively slide - but, as pointed out above, I'm not sure how relevant that is.
In that situation, I probably only make that call if you think the double play would have otherwise been turned - which it looked 90/10 like it would not have. I'm usually a "don't vary the call by the situation" guy, but this was about as a high leverage of a situation as you'll find.
By the way ... it's OK to be a TCU fan and still admit you got a break to win a game.
It was most certainly a break. The Frogs were incredibly fortunate to play poorly in 2 of the 3 phases of the game and remain in the winner's bracket.
"Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:
(1)
The runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder
and alters the play of a fielder (with or without contact);"
The runner was clearly in the baseline.
"(2)
The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with
or alters the play of a fielder;"
It was a standard slide (though it was a tad hard).
"(3)
The runner’s raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder’s knee when
in a standing position;"
From the video, it appears that the runner's legs made contact below the fielder's knees.
"(4)
The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or"
Ha ha. No.
"(5)
The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the fielder
makes no attempt to throw to complete a play."
Again, didn't happen.
Shale money will buy you a lot of calls, it seems. The blind mice were gifted a gray area that they were able to use to save the game for the local boys. Shame.
Texa$, aTm, TCU, Baylor... *sigh* I can never decide which one I despise the most, because they are all so very awful in their own revolting ways. TCU moves to the head of the list for today.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 02:56 PM by Wiessman.)
"Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:
(1)
The runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder
and alters the play of a fielder (with or without contact);"
The runner was clearly in the baseline.
"(2)
The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with
or alters the play of a fielder;"
It was a standard slide (though it was a tad hard).
"(3)
The runner’s raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder’s knee when
in a standing position;"
From the video, it appears that the runner's legs made contact below the fielder's knees.
"(4)
The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or"
Ha ha. No.
"(5)
The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the fielder
makes no attempt to throw to complete a play."
Again, didn't happen.
Shale money will buy you a lot of calls, it seems. SHSU was foolish enough to give the umps a gray area to save the game for the local boys. Shame.
Texa$, aTm, TCU, Baylor... *sigh* I can never decide which one I despise the most, because they are all so very awful in their own revolting ways. TCU moves to the head of the list for today.
Number 2. SHSU runner creamed the guy, and did not start his slide until he was almost over the bag, 4-5 steps after he was out. He gets down, they win. He barrels in and, well, opens himself to the call.
SHSU also had but three hits for much of the game, two of which were misplayed pop-ups by the TCU difference. SHSU should feel heartbroken, but it is hardly the case that they were dominant and were robbed.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 04:34 PM by TCU2002.)
"Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:
(1)
The runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder
and alters the play of a fielder (with or without contact);"
The runner was clearly in the baseline.
"(2)
The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with
or alters the play of a fielder;"
It was a standard slide (though it was a tad hard).
"(3)
The runner’s raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder’s knee when
in a standing position;"
From the video, it appears that the runner's legs made contact below the fielder's knees.
"(4)
The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or"
Ha ha. No.
"(5)
The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the fielder
makes no attempt to throw to complete a play."
Again, didn't happen.
Shale money will buy you a lot of calls, it seems. SHSU was foolish enough to give the blind mice a gray area that they were able to use to save the game for the local boys. Shame.
Texa$, aTm, TCU, Baylor... *sigh* I can never decide which one I despise the most, because they are all so very awful in their own revolting ways. TCU moves to the head of the list for today.
Are you saying fracking is polluting baseball?? I'm sure TCEQ would disagree.
(06-01-2014 07:08 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: Benches clear in Texas Tech - Miami game.
That situation escalated quickly.
It was a silly move by Gutierrez of TTU, no doubt. But I don't really blame Tech's asst. coach for getting a little hot at UM's first base coach. I've never been a huge fan of coaches jawing with players, particularly at the college level, no matter what happened on the field.
It ends up being a really costly move for Gutierrez and Tech. He was ejected from this game and by rule, if Miami wins tonight and they need the "if necessary" tomorrow, he will miss that one as well.
(06-01-2014 07:01 PM)At Ease Wrote: I don't know whether that play was legal or not, but from the GIF, I support the call..
It looks worse than it really is. By the rules, the runner can slide through the base and has a right to the territory, provided that he makes a clean slide and doesn't start the slide too long after he's been thrown out. The bottom line is that it was a bad call.
And frankly, I think the TCU player knew for certain that he had no shot at the DP, so he just camped out on second and planted straight into the runner's path as he "threw" towards first. Any second baseman will tell you that's not how you do it, unless you are trying to court a legal mow-down. The TCU player definitely made a meal of it.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 11:31 PM by Wiessman.)
(06-01-2014 03:01 PM)Wiessman Wrote: He started his slide four or five steps after he was out? Good god man, either tell it like it is, or stop polluting our forum.
(06-01-2014 10:20 PM)I45owl Wrote: This looks similar, if not worse, than the infamous Aggie slide at Reckling park...
Hmmm. In my memory that Aggie's slide was clearly off the base path.
I was kind of thinking that. In terms of the Rule, the Aggie was worse, in terms of a dangerous or reckless slide, the Bearkat was probably far more likely to injure the fielder, even granting that the fielder shouldn't have camped out where he was (which I'd say is more poor fundamentals than gaming a call, but that's my opinion).