Michelle Smith explaining

LT · #1 (**permalink**) Sun May 30, 2004, 11:46pm

Did you hear Michelle Smith explain "defensive interference" during the Cal/LSU game? A full "defination" of the topic after the noncall at 1st base.

Wonder how she defines "Obstruction?"

Defense "obstructs".....Offense "interferes."

OH...when will they learn?

Ed Maeder · #2 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 12:07am

She has out done herself. I sure hope their ability to play is a whole lot better then their rule knowledge. Unbelievable!

IRISHMAFIA · #3 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 09:12am

Michelle Smith couldn't explain the color of her hair if she had her stylist standing there reading to her from the Lady Clairol bottle.

greymule · #4 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 02:12pm

For some reason, many people (including media types) assume that players must naturally be experts on the game and therefore its rules.

I know former pro (including MLB) players whose knowledge of the rules is barely that of the average fan (and we know what level that is). I know a couple who didn't know the Braves were ever in Boston or the A's in Philadelpia. Some are unaware of certain well-known playing records. The names of some all-time greats are unfamiliar to them. As far as rules go, one of them told me, "I just let the umps call it."

One newspaper reporter was surprised to find several MLB players who had never heard of Jackie Robinson.

No surprise that not all player-announcers turn out to be knowledgeable about the game.

Dukat · #5 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 07:39pm

Championship game I learned from Michelle Smith that the strike zone was above the knees to just above the belt. Who knew these girls were wearing their belts just under their armpits?

IRISHMAFIA · #6 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 07:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dukat
Championship game I learned from Michelle Smith that the strike zone was above the knees to just above the belt. Who knew these girls were wearing their belts just under their armpits?

Is this the batter's strike zone, the pitcher's strike zone or the umpire's strike zone?

She has gotta be a natural blond!

whiskers_ump · #7 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 08:21pm

First run of the game looked like a fullback with a
leading block to the left side.

Steve M · #8 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 08:47pm

Did everyone just hear them explain the obstruction call at the plate? Wunnuerful wunnerful as the guy who used to play the bubble music used to say.

What might have been interesting was I do not know that the obstructed runner ever did go touch the plate - hmmmmmm could have gotten really interesting there.

Absolutely the correct call, maybe it could have been made a second or so earlier - wouldn't have confused the blonds into thinking it was a 1-armed safe call.

IRISHMAFIA · #9 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 08:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
First run of the game looked like a fullback with a
leading block to the left side.

And that was obstruction, too!

Michelle Smith once again shows she has little to no knowledge of the game or rules. I saw the call. I knew Mike Mazur called obstruction. The runner was blocked by the catcher before the ball reached her.

Though I would like to see Cal win, the umpire had it right.

BigUmpJohn · #10 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 08:55pm

The more I watch this game, the more I get mad. These two announcers are the WORST EVER!!!! I have the game on mute now.

I had no idea that the strike zone shrunk according to Michelle Smith, and that there are three of them. Which one do we call as umpires?

Excellent obstruction call by the PU at the bottom of the 5th. I had my left arm up at home. Besides, it looked like the runner snuck her fingernails onto the plate anyway.

And is it just me, or is Keira Goerl crow hopping occassionally?

whiskers_ump · #11 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 08:58pm

Agree. The first was a no call. The second one was
a great call.

Stacy Nvenumm just tried to explain that the OBS was
one base award. Hmmmmm. She did agree it was OBS.

whiskers_ump · #12 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 09:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve M
Did everyone just hear them explain the obstruction call at the plate? Wunnuerful wunnerful as the guy who used to play the bubble music used to say.

What might have been interesting was I do not know that the obstructed runner ever did go touch the plate - hmmmmmm could have gotten really interesting there.

Absolutely the correct call, maybe it could have been made a second or so earlier - wouldn't have confused the blonds into thinking it was a 1-armed safe call.

Steve,

I was wondering if maybe he [PU] thought she could get
the plate on first pass, but was OBS coming back. Although
I thought it was OBS all the way.

BktBallRef · #13 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 09:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by whiskers_ump

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve M
Did everyone just hear them explain the obstruction call at the plate? Wunnuerful wunnerful as the guy who used to play the bubble music used to say.

What might have been interesting was I do not know that the obstructed runner ever did go touch the plate - hmmmmmm could have gotten really interesting there.

Absolutely the correct call, maybe it could have been made a second or so earlier - wouldn't have confused the blonds into thinking it was a 1-armed safe call.

Steve,

I was wondering if maybe he [PU] thought she could get
the plate on first pass, but was OBS coming back. Although
I thought it was OBS all the way.

Agreed. Personally, I thought she obstructed her twice:

First by blocking the plate long before the ball arrived.

Second, after the ball arrived by pushing her away from the plate with her right leg.

Either way, great call!

IRISHMAFIA · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 01, 2004, 06:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Agreed. Personally, I thought she obstructed her twice:

First by blocking the plate long before the ball arrived.

Second, after the ball arrived by pushing her away from the plate with her right leg.

Either way, great call!

Well, er, you cannot call obstruction on a player with the ball. The obstruction call was on first contact with the catcher's left leg. As soon as Mike Mazur saw she wasn't going to reach the plate, out went the arm.

And yes, Stacy Neuvmann was doing real well trying to explain the call, right up until she stated that the result of the OBS call was that runners are moved up one base. So near, yet so far!

BktBallRef · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 01, 2004, 09:27am

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Well, er, you cannot call obstruction on a player with the ball. The obstruction call was on first contact with the catcher's left leg. As soon as Mike Mazur saw she wasn't going to reach the plate, out went the arm.

While I stated that she had the ball, quite honestly, without looking at a replay, I'm not sure that she had it at that he point. But the catcher was using her right leg to push the runner away from the plate, as she was on the ground behind the plate, trying to reach it.

If the call was on "first contact with the catcher's left leg," why didn't he immediately signal with his arm?

Is it the correct mechanic to wait to see if a runner will safely get to the base/plate before signaling obstruction?

Finally, you're saying that a defender who has the ball and isn't able to yet make a tag, can push the runner away from the base/plate until such time as she's able to make the tag? I can understand blocking but actually pushing is legal?

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jun 1st, 2004 at 10:33 AM]