Announcers, Part 2,359,586

[Manny A]

Was watching the Red Sox / A's game on NESN yesterday. The Sox had a 6-0 lead going into the top 9, and they almost let it get away from them. The A's scored three as the pitching and defense suddenly looked like a product of my local Little League.

In one play, the A's had the bases loaded with no outs. Batter hid a little comebacker toward the mound. Red Sox F1 threw home to get the force, and then F2 airmailed the throw well over F3's head. Almost immediately, F3 complained that the A's BR was out of the running lane as he approached first base.

The announcers went into a tizzy that interference should have been ruled because the BR's position caused F2's throw to go wild. Geez, don't these guys ever learn?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Manny A

.....Geez, don't these guys ever learn?

No...what incentive do they have to learn the rules?

[nopachunts]

Manny, It was either part number 1 or 2 that first established announcers and color commentators don't know jack-**** about baseball rules. It has been re-enforced 2,359,584 times.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Andy

No...what incentive do they have to learn the rules?

To give us credibility.

I do my best to learn the rules so I know what is going on and not sound like an idiot making it up as I go. I cringe when I hear a HS or college game and a broadcaster describes a pop-up in the middle of F3, F4 and F9 fall to the ground and his partner wonder aloud why the IFF wasn't called when none of the three got to the point of settling under it. Or when a personal foul is called in HS football and a broadcaster complains that it isn't an automatic first down.

I tell you, the first time I see a free kick after fair catch live, I will be ready!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

To give us credibility.

I do my best to learn the rules so I know what is going on and not sound like an idiot making it up as I go. I cringe when I hear a HS or college game and a broadcaster describes a pop-up in the middle of F3, F4 and F9 fall to the ground and his partner wonder aloud why the IFF wasn't called when none of the three got to the point of settling under it. Or when a personal foul is called in HS football and a broadcaster complains that it isn't an automatic first down.

I tell you, the first time I see a free kick after fair catch live, I will be ready!

Very little of the public is going to call them on their ignorant statements. That is why they will never change unless the public attitude changes about what they say or what they know when it comes to the rules.

Peace

[ozzy6900]

Actually, Manny, Remmy and Don (NESN Red Sox announcers) are usually pretty good about the rules. They don't argue decisions that umpires make (as others do), they for the most part, have a better grasp on the rules than other announcers. But with all that said, I have yet to see or hear any announcer(s) understand the running lane restrictions, penalties and nuances.

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

I cringe when I hear a HS or college game and a broadcaster describes a pop-up in the middle of F3, F4 and F9 fall to the ground and his partner wonder aloud why the IFF wasn't called when none of the three got to the point of settling under it.

I don't work baseball, is there no IFF under NCAA rules or is it the "settling under it" that is required?

[john5396]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't work baseball, is there no IFF under NCAA rules or is it the "settling under it" that is required?

All rule sets are the same. The requirement is that an infielder can catch the ball with "normal" effort. Typical interpretation is that if an infielder has to catch the ball with his back to the plate, then that does not meet normal effort. So if an infielder can get to the sport and settly, not catching on the run, then they have met the normal effort and the IFF should be called to protect the offense.

Originally Posted by john5396

All rule sets are the same. The requirement is that an infielder can catch the ball with "normal" effort. Typical interpretation is that if an infielder has to catch the ball with his back to the plate, then that does not meet normal effort. So if an infielder can get to the sport and settly, not catching on the run, then they have met the normal effort and the IFF should be called to protect the offense.

Thank you john5396!

[Out]

Originally Posted by Andy

No...what incentive do they have to learn the rules?

They won't look like idiots on national TV?

[Out]

Originally Posted by john5396

All rule sets are the same. The requirement is that an infielder can catch the ball with "normal" effort. Typical interpretation is that if an infielder has to catch the ball with his back to the plate, then that does not meet normal effort. So if an infielder can get to the sport and settly, not catching on the run, then they have met the normal effort and the IFF should be called to protect the offense.

Unless the fielder has seriously misplayed the ball (e.g. lost in sun).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Out

They won't look like idiots on national TV?

You don't look like an idiot saying things the vast majority agree with.

[Out]

Originally Posted by Matt

You don't look like an idiot saying things the vast majority agree with.

The vast majority who watch baseball when it comes to rules are idiots. Choose who you please.