Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, DesertDog2K said:

This pxp guy sounds ridiculously anti-UT. We scored the sixth run and it sounded like someone shot his dog.

He’s all SEC 

Posted
1 minute ago, GotThatFire said:

 Motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate  motivate motivate motivate motivate 

Drives me insane. Can't hit the mute button fast enough.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Goo Punch said:

 


I don’t believe he impeded the throw. Not even a little bit.

 

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

Fair enough, that’s a good analogy.

Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

Not to mention the rule specifically dismisses "intent" as having any bearing on the call.

Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

Why not see how deep Shugart can go in this game?  Relievers gonna be a lot more valuable tomorrow. 

my thoughts exactly. though they stated they'd be keen to bounce him asap in the regional

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...