Cat Osterman

IRISHMAFIA · #1 (**permalink**) Fri May 27, 2005, 07:58pm

Sitting here watching the BCC-UT game and Cat is striking out everyone.

Maybe I'm stupid, but if I'm the coach and my team is not hitting the pitcher, I'd be bunting the **** out of the ball until they stopped me.

Meanwhile, BCC isn't even trying. Many of the batter's swings seem half-hearted.

IRISHMAFIA · #2 (**permalink**) Fri May 27, 2005, 08:02pm

There's something I've never heard before. UT rung up and the alleged announcer says something along the line of, "as a batter, you never want the bat taken out of your hand".

Pitch was marginal outside and the Austin fans hated the call. However, they didn't mind the shin-high strike Cat got on a BCC batter.

Duke · #3 (**permalink**) Fri May 27, 2005, 08:23pm

Maybe the alleged announcer meant to say "the hands were part of the bat" Maybe I shouldn't go there.....

IRISHMAFIA · #4 (**permalink**) Fri May 27, 2005, 08:33pm

UT wins game in 9th. Don't think it would have made a difference, but U3 was all over a call that was shown through replay as badly blown.

kellerumps · #5 (**permalink**) Fri May 27, 2005, 09:01pm

It was a great game though. Agreed about the call at 3rd. Ump was out of position, according to NCAA mechanics.

JEL · #6 (**permalink**) Sat May 28, 2005, 06:50am

Did anyone think Cat was leaping? I didn't see it from the angle they were showing.

Wish the full Georgia-UCLA game had been shown. I would choose that over boxing anytime.

AtlUmpSteve · #7 (**permalink**) Sat May 28, 2005, 09:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by kellerumps
It was a great game though. Agreed about the call at 3rd. Ump was out of position, according to NCAA mechanics.

Funny you would say that. I thought the reason the call was missed was because it WAS called using NCAA mechanics. Specifically, the ump was so close, he missed the tag in all the sweep action. With the runner sliding to the back of the bag, he properly stayed in foul ground to see that angle; just too darn close (which is what the NCAA Umpire Development staff preaches).

Also, did anyone thinking ASA or NFHS think obstruction? The replays were unclear, but the 3B blocked the bag, which kicked the sliding foot up, the foot that was tagged. What was unclear was if the ball had arrived (I think not). However, not an excuse for the call, since 1) NCAA allows "about to receive", and 2) if that was the basis for the call, it was mishandled.

Besides that, Natasha Whatley takes the ESPN talking heads to a new low. She was overwhelmingly the most anti-blue in some time, and often didn't get coherent sentences out.

kellerumps · #8 (**permalink**) Sat May 28, 2005, 12:21pm

Well on the play, the NCAA wants us at a 90 instead of the 180 he was at. So by book, he needed to be 3rd foul line 8-10 feet from the play. When you get that close, you achieve what Emily refers to as the 4th dimension.

As for OBS, at first both of us thought there might have been OBS...yes NCAA OBS.

IRISHMAFIA · #9 (**permalink**) Sat May 28, 2005, 12:51pm

Generally speaking on this play.

I believe F5 had the ball prior to the runner making contact. Also, the runner didn't hesitate or alter her slide in the slightest, so I see no obstruction here.

On the tag, because the runner went to the outside, she basically placed herself between the umpire and the tag. If the umpire had been in a position in foul ground looking diagonally across the bag, I believe the call would have been different.