Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
I, like many in here, am a Red Sox fan. I agree he was out. But its a VERY FAIR argument to ask how it is different than a play at the plate. If this was a play at the plate, and the ball secure in his glove when making the tag but was plowed through and after his body hit the ground the ball dropped out, is there anyone that can HONESTLY say that they believe that wouldn't have been called safe??? Thats something that happens a handful of times every season, and its commonplace where if the catcher doesn't have possession of the ball AFTER the impact is completely over, the player has ALWAYS been called safe.
Exactly
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
acetoolguy
I think the difference is that a runner knocking the catcher down and causing the ball to come loose is a baseball play while the catcher falling to the ground, banging his glove on the ground, after the tag, causing the ball to come out, is not a baseball play.
this like nearly most of the other posts I've read in hear scream homer fan. one is a baseball play and one isn't??? WTF???
Really funny, because you above most others I would have thought would be above bias homer'ism'.
Look....i'm not saying he wasn't out, all i'm saying is that it's very clear that LAA have a legitimate gripe, and had the play occurred at the plate rather than 3rd he'd have been safe. I'm sorry, but refusing to admit something as clear cut as that shows to me one can't look beyond their fandom bias. Had the roles been reversed, I'd bet my 1st born Sawx fans would be screaming conspiracy in these forums today.
I think MLB has done a poor job handling this or at least explaining their rationale, and the reason they haven't is also clear to me, because they don't have an answer. Its ironic that these situations pop up during postseason play, but this is obviously an area which MLB rules committee needs to revisit and clarify.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reade
Thats what I was thinking also. Its almost a judgement call on the part of the umpire. What really surprised me was after Scioscia came out of the dugout, that the umps didn't confer with each other just to be sure they all saw the same thing.
I agree there's always going to be judgement involved, but I think this highlighted an area that MLB needs to clarify because it's blatantly and horrifically inadequate.
I know it's a movie, but in the movie A League of their Own, didn't the catcher chick get plowed over, fall to the ground and THEN her hand hit the ground which caused the ball come loose? That was accepted by pretty much every baseball fan I've ever known as an accurate depiction of the call. Fact is, we've accepted the ground contact after a collision at the plate to be a 'safe' call, yet here when it's to our benefit people say a collision at 3rd causing the catcher to fall and his glove strike the ground which leads to the ball bouncing out is somewhat different, not only out but not even a 'baseball play'. Interesting, really.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
from Ken Rosenthal to the guys from WEEI, they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cartman00000001
from Ken Rosenthal to the guys from WEEI, they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.
Bingo....as I said, MLB needs to revisit their rulebook and provide clarification. Nice job.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.
Thats exactly what David Campbellfrom ESPN said, then he went on the mention that MLB gives the umps and coaches a case scenio book that covers strange plays that might come up, he also said this book is almost impossible to get a hold of.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Really funny, because you above most others I would have thought would be above bias homer'ism'.
What the hell are you talking about?
You've completely baffled me in this thread. It's seems to me that you just randomly decided to pick a fight with me, considering I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Yes HGM, but you exist, so...
You know, in "A League of Their Own" (good movie), the catcher, Gina Davis, dropped the ball on purpose. Many dont realize that. Something about her love for her sister (who crashed into her, attempting to score) overriding her own desire to win.
Also, I dont see any homerism here. The guy was out, and thats how I see it, no matter who it was. I have seen bad calls go in favor of my team, and I can admit to it when it happens.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Also, I'm not a Boston fan, nor did I want Boston to win the series.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Had the roles been reversed, I'd bet my 1st born Sawx fans would be screaming conspiracy in these forums today.
I'm glad you said and not me, because god knows all Cubs fans do is whine and cry.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
What the hell are you talking about?
You've completely baffled me in this thread. It's seems to me that you just randomly decided to pick a fight with me, considering I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.
Geez, is that how its going to be now? Whenever someone disagrees with you you're going to play the 'stop picking on me you're trying to pick a fight' card?
You said he was out and were definitive in that. I said its not as clear cut as you make it, although I agree he was out by my loose definition MLB has done a poor job and needs to review it. You stated, "Um, no" in response to that statement. Sounds like you refuted my point to me.
Anyhow, it may disappoint you but 'um, no' this is not about you houston.
Quote:
Thats exactly what David Campbellfrom ESPN said, then he went on the mention that MLB gives the umps and coaches a case scenio book that covers strange plays that might come up, he also said this book is almost impossible to get a hold of.
The acquisition of this book would actually be good news and journalism.
Quote:
Also, I dont see any homerism here. The guy was out, and thats how I see it, no matter who it was. I have seen bad calls go in favor of my team, and I can admit to it when it happens.
It appears to me however that people refuse to admit that LAA have a legitimate gripe or at least the right to question it. Thats what i'm refering to as homerism because had the roles been reversed Boston would too have that legitimate gripe/right and I'm willing to bet many in here would invoke it. I too think he was out...but dang I think its pretty amazing how much this same thing happens at the plate with the reversed call.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Geez, is that how its going to be now? Whenever someone disagrees with you you're going to play the 'stop picking on me you're trying to pick a fight' card?
When I'm not actually disagreeing with someone, and they somehow have it in their mind that I am, and they randomly pop into a thread and start arguing against me for something that I'm not even saying, yes, I'm going to say that they're picking a fight with me.
And, amazingly, you're STILL arguing with me, when I've made it abundantly clear that I don't disagree with you, and I have not refuted anything you've said except one statement in which you were saying that I'm doing something which I'm not...see right below.
Quote:
You said he was out and were definitive in that. I said its not as clear cut as you make it, although I agree he was out by my loose definition MLB has done a poor job and needs to review it. You stated, "Um, no" in response to that statement. Sounds like you refuted my point to me.
I said "Uh, no" only to the part I quoted in the post where I said that...which was you saying that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white" and that I'm "refusing to admit baseball has done a poor job here."
Quote:
Anyhow, it may disappoint you but 'um, no' this is not about you houston.
When you target statements directly at me, yes, it's about me.
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
When you target statements directly at me, yes, it's about me.
OK houston, we'll let it be about you if it makes you feel better. Can we move on now? :rolleyes:
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Or, you know, all of you children could try that GROWING UP thing.
No, no, please, continue skewing a conversation to infantile back and forth...that's the better choice. :rolleyes:
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arctic Blast
Or, you know, all of you children could try that GROWING UP thing.
No, no, please, continue skewing a conversation to infantile back and forth...that's the better choice. :rolleyes:
agreed
