Interesting play

[David B]

Just wondering how the pitcher was able to stay in the game. I don't do college baseball anymore, but seemed this might be a little flagrant?

Thanks
David

Levi Austin tackles Collin Radack - Yahoo! Sports

[dash_riprock]

That's a four-game suspension.

[RKBUmp]

Just showed this to my daughter, she went to UCA and knows the kid that got tackled.

[ozzy6900]

He should have been ejected.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

He should have been ejected.

Agree. Intentional and flagrant.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It is not my intent to hijack the thread away from should or should there have been an ejection, but rather let us focus on the timing of the Timeout request.

F1 had just come to his Set Position (SeP) when B2 requested a TO and then the PU granted B2's request. I have no problem with granting B2's TO request while F1 is in the Stretch Position (StP) but I have qualms about granting it once F1 is in his set SeP. While being in the SeP is not that same as F1 starting his pitching motion. Once in the SeP F1 can pitch or start any number of defensive plays on Runners that are on base. This is not to say that the defense cannot start a defensive play when F1 is in the StP, but I just believe the SeP is an altogether different animal when it comes to granting the offense's TO request.

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

F1 had just come to his Set Position (SeP) when B2 requested a TO and then the PU granted B2's request. I have no problem with granting B2's TO request while F1 is in the Stretch Position (StP) but I have qualms about granting it once F1 is in his set SeP.

What do you do if F1 comes set and stays there...still there...still there...are you not going to grant time eventually? I believe the custom is to grant time before TOP. But if they ask for time habitually, my reaction time slows and I might not get time called before F1 starts a delivery.

[bob jenkins]

It was a POE last year (I think) to not grant time unless / until the pitcher "freezes" the hitter.

I don't know what else had been happening in this game to judge what happened here.

[jicecone]

Hard to tell because it is a video however, it seemed like a borderline set. Having said that, the batter put his hand up just as the pitcher started to become set and as already stated that set almost seemed like a change in direction. Close.

Generally, I won't give time if the pitcher begins TOP, which is when the hands separate however, sometimes there is about a 1 sec delay from when eyes see the request or recognize a verbal request, it registers and the mind makes the hands go up and the mouth verbalize "Time". In that one second the pitcher almost always decides to pitch and someone complains. Its called life.

If indeed the pitcher was allowed to stay in the game then thats just poor officiating, at any level.

[Tim C]

Clear why the pitcher did what he did and it is also clear, in my opinion, that the umpire's poor performance was a major part of the end result.

T

[jicecone]

I love the way u1 non-chalantly strolls to the plate.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If indeed the pitcher was allowed to stay in the game then thats just poor officiating, at any level.

Just another dumb-azz announcer. Austin was ejected.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It was a POE last year (I think) to not grant time unless / until the pitcher "freezes" the hitter.

Was that POE from NCAA or Fed ?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

was that poe from ncaa or fed ?

ncaa.

[maven]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't know what else had been happening in this game to judge what happened here.

Surely you have an opinion based just on the video? I have no problem qualifying such a ruling with, "this might need revision based on prior events/rulings in the game."