The Official Forum  

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 17, 2008, 03:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Assuming (yeah, I know) that was sarcasm -- well done.

On the OP, I didn't see it, but the explanation (weak interference) makes sense if that's what happened. If not, then they likely kicked it. Not the first time, won't be the last.
How can you get sarcasm out of what I said? It is very possible that the umpires wanted to stay on Jeter's good side. That's just the way it is in Yankeeland.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 17, 2008, 03:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
How can you get sarcasm out of what I said? It is very possible that the umpires wanted to stay on Jeter's good side. That's just the way it is in Yankeeland.

Why would a professional umpire risk damaging his reputation to stay on a player's good side?
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 17, 2008, 03:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp
Why would a professional umpire risk damaging his reputation to stay on a player's good side?
It baffles me as much as it baffles you, but that is about the only explanation I can think of, other than really bad judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 17, 2008, 04:17pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
How can you get sarcasm out of what I said? It is very possible that the umpires wanted to stay on Jeter's good side. That's just the way it is in Yankeeland.
If what you had said was sarcastic, it would have been rather clever.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 17, 2008, 04:38pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
If what you had said was sarcastic, it would have been rather clever.
Yes, and that means that my original observation was correct. He was serious! YGTBSM!!!

Walt, just keep on calling them the way they are, buddy!
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 18, 2008, 02:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 151
Computer problems kept me from signing on yesterday or I would have posted earlier. KC Royals fan here (yes, there are a couple of us left!) and was watching the game and this play. Jeter swung and missed, his follow-through went all the way around and ended with the bat head in the dirt down by his feet, at an angle to his hands and in front of the catcher's left foot. Buck, the catcher, comes out throwing (poorly as he has done most of the season) and his left foot hits the bat (which isn't in motion as the follow-through is done). Doesn't really impact his throw, but the PU immediately pointed down at the interference. Called time after Damon was safe at 2nd and walked out and made the award, no discussion with anyone else on the crew.

At first glance, I couldn't figure out why Jeter stayed at the plate and Damon went back, but as pointed out earlier, J/R cites an example almost identical to this and the award matches what was enforced at the game.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 18, 2008, 04:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
The umpires made up a new rule to please Jeter. Whenever there is a call, the benefit of the doubt goes to Jeter by default. That's the only explanation I can think of. Got to stay on his good side, even if he is only slightly better than average by MLB playing standards.
If that's the only explanation you can think of, you still have a long way to go to understand baseball, and umpiring.

The call was correct, the rule is legit and there was, as usual, no favortism shown.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 18, 2008, 05:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
If what you had said was sarcastic, it would have been rather clever.
Shhh let's pretend it was sarcasm.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 18, 2008, 06:08pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
Shhh let's pretend it was sarcasm.
Okeedokee !
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
back pick, give a step, does anyone call this today boiseball Basketball 22 Fri Nov 02, 2007 02:53pm
Tough call for me today DTQ_Blue Baseball 33 Wed May 09, 2007 09:55am
Tough call for me today DTQ_Blue Softball 6 Sat May 05, 2007 08:55pm
Interference in the Yankees-Royals game? greymule Baseball 12 Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:08am
Twins/Royals last night johnnyg08 Baseball 12 Fri Jul 07, 2006 01:05pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1