The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 1.00 average. Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 22, 2007, 06:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 465
Send a message via AIM to bobbybanaduck
being all over a tag play is coming from their supervisors. the proper positioning for this play, again, from their supervisors, is to put the bag between you and the ball, which would mean that he would have had to be in the path of the sliding runner to be in what they want for proper positioning. obviously he couldn't be in the path, so he had to choose one side or the other. take it step by step. he started in the outfield, so if he went to the 3b side on the way in he would be crossing the path of the ball. so he went the other way, keeping the developing play in front of him. as the play developed, he moved in to get all over the play, per what their supervisors want. you can like it, or you can not like it, but everybody on here that gives advice says to do whatever your supervisor wants, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 22, 2007, 08:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck
being all over a tag play is coming from their supervisors. the proper positioning for this play, again, from their supervisors, is to put the bag between you and the ball, which would mean that he would have had to be in the path of the sliding runner to be in what they want for proper positioning. obviously he couldn't be in the path, so he had to choose one side or the other. take it step by step. he started in the outfield, so if he went to the 3b side on the way in he would be crossing the path of the ball. so he went the other way, keeping the developing play in front of him. as the play developed, he moved in to get all over the play, per what their supervisors want. you can like it, or you can not like it, but everybody on here that gives advice says to do whatever your supervisor wants, correct?
Bobby. bobby, bobby.......are you expecting consistency of thought from internet poster? Fie!

This summer of following MiLB umpires around the southwest and northwest was one of many revelations. The impact of umpire supervisors, previously invisible, became "in your face" obvious.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 23, 2007, 07:36pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Pete

Good points, but there was no continuous action on the Lofton play. The ball was not dead but the call was fixable via IR. What if it was the bottom of the 9th in a tie game with none out. The call would be critical and the IR proponents would argue that IR should be used to get it right.

And like I said, I am NOT a proponent of IR.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 23, 2007, 08:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
Pete

Good points, but there was no continuous action on the Lofton play. The ball was not dead but the call was fixable via IR. What if it was the bottom of the 9th in a tie game with none out. The call would be critical and the IR proponents would argue that IR should be used to get it right.

And like I said, I am NOT a proponent of IR.
What would be wrong with that premise is that it would change how that call was made in the previous 162 games of the year.

Just because the press box is full of sportswriters and the TV audience is bigger does not warrant changing the way the game is played in the post season. After all any call in the 9th inning of a tied regular season game could have affected what team even got to the post season.

The other problem with your argument is you cannot base a replay on the lack of any other action. Assuming a bad call you would suggest that if there is no other action then review it? But if the play has continuing and ensuing action after the call we ignore it?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 24, 2007, 02:37am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Thanks to all for the well-wishes, prayers, and kind words. Hopefully the air tanker fixed-wing planes will knock these fires out and we can go home soon. If they get going first thing in the morning, I think my place will be alright. I feel tremendously bad for those who have lost their homes.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 24, 2007, 09:14pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
What would be wrong with that premise is that it would change how that call was made in the previous 162 games of the year.

Just because the press box is full of sportswriters and the TV audience is bigger does not warrant changing the way the game is played in the post season. After all any call in the 9th inning of a tied regular season game could have affected what team even got to the post season.

The other problem with your argument is you cannot base a replay on the lack of any other action. Assuming a bad call you would suggest that if there is no other action then review it? But if the play has continuing and ensuing action after the call we ignore it?
If, MLB had IR, it could be used all year, not just playoffs. Pete was making the argument that continuing action would eliminate certain types of calls from being reviewed. I pointed out that Lofton call at 2B was not a situation where continuing action applied.

Are you keeping up with this discussion or coming in the middle without reviewing what has been said?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 24, 2007, 10:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
If, MLB had IR, it could be used all year, not just playoffs. Pete was making the argument that continuing action would eliminate certain types of calls from being reviewed. I pointed out that Lofton call at 2B was not a situation where continuing action applied.

Are you keeping up with this discussion or coming in the middle without reviewing what has been said?
You may want to review who started the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 25, 2007, 09:57pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
You may want to review who started the thread.
Not relevant. Add one to ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 26, 2007, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14
GarthB

sorry buddy, I'm from Toronto Canada!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1