More Wisdom From NCAA Championships
 

Beth Whateverhernameis claims that a slapper must keep one foot in the batter's box. Must have missed that one.

Also, lot of slappers getting strikes called for "swings" when it seems it isn't even close. I'm not talking a couple, but dozens that I've seen since Thursday.

Can any of you NCAA guys tell us if there is a standard (i.e. dragging bat through strike zone, not pulling bat back, etc.) which has been implemented as an indication for a "swing"?

Actually, she said the batter wants to keep one foot in the batter's box.

True. The other is on it's way to first but not yet on the ground when hitting the ball.

Didn't hear it that way, but I'll take your word for it. But I didn't hear a clarification on where the other foot may or may not be..

Just got back from OKC and now watching the ESPN gals do their thingy. While you miss some replays at HOF stadium, it is sure nice not to have to listen to these 3 'experts'.

How about a sideline reporter with an extensive 'blue' background next year? Not just from some ex-[layer's perspective.

Or, at least, a decent hat

There's a new one! Sac bunt. The catcher wanted to let it go foul, "but listened to the ump" (who was behind her pointing fair)

FOUL TIP?!?!

The catcher didn't catch the ball, how can it be a "foul tip" at least a half dozen time!

Be nice to have a strike signal with the verbal 'three'. (but then again, we have all 'froze' before, or at least I have....and yes there is a story behind that too)

And did you see where Mike Bartling over ruled Scott Thomas on that play at 2B.

Oh, and was it Mendoza who said the umpire should call the runner out on principle for not sliding? Oh, yeah, that would go over real well if a play went that way.

Coach: Are you kidding, she was safe!
Blue: Coach, she didn't slide.
Coach: So what, she doesn't have to slide
Blue: Yeah, but I called her out on principle!!!!

Yeah, that umpire would be invited back next year.

Yeah, what was that all about...
I was working at the time, but had the TV on.
Couldn't figure out what actually happened.

The play was 6-5-4, U1 called runner at 2nd safe. The TH immediately noted she should have slid and probably would have been safe, but she went in standing up. The replay showed the ball getting into F4s glove before the runner contacting the base.

F6 started questioning U3 (Mike Bartling) about the call. The TH pointed out that U3 was telling the UT player that he thought the runner was out at 2nd. Yeah, like I believe that. Unfortunately, all the idiots in TV land probably do believe it.

Apparently, and I don't remember seeing it on the screen, Mike and Scott got together and the runner was ruled out at 2nd. And in their normal fashion of ignorance, declared that one umpire over ruled another's call which any intelligent fan knows that isn't going to happen.

I knew you would pick up on that one. My wife kept asking me why I was yelling at the TV. I just told her the talking heads were driving me nuts.

Admittedly, I am not NCAA World series caliber umpire. However, I do know a foul ball from a foul tip. That last game (AZ-v-TN if game) was not the best officiated of the series.

On that "foul-tip" that wasn't caught, what the heck happened?

It appears the plate umpire didn't see the bat strike the ball. Fine, so why was the runner removed from 1B when she finally went there having not been tagged by the catcher?

The "standard" is not listening when Beth Whateverhernameis begins to explain rules.:);):D

Did I hear Michelle Smith correctly last night claiming that a 'leap' is actually a 'disadvantage' to the pitcher (mechanically) because the 'drive' behind the pitch is 'up and not directly towards home plate'?

That is simple physics. A given force from the push off the plate is divided between the vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component, which causes the leap, will reduce what is left for the horizontal component, thereby reducing the drive toward the plate.

This ignores the friction from dragging the foot that is not present during the leap itself.

interesting, But wouldn't that same force by applied in the opposite direction when the 'leap' is going back down? you know that ole 32' per sec squared thingy.

(and the drag dealio makes alot of sense)

Yes, Dakota ... however, I believe the reason a leap aids the pitcher is not the movement vertical at all, but rather the faster arm motion. Why? If the girl could throw with her current motion without her momentum bringing her off the ground, she would. But she can't. She has to throw less hard in order to not bring herself off the ground.

Yes, due to gravity the vertical movement will pull her back to the ground as fast as she left. But it won't cause her to move toward the plate. That's all a factor of her horizontal force and drag (which increases I would think substantially when the foot is on the ground).
________
Marijuana Card

We seem to be due for a dissertation from our resident pitching physiologist.

One simple question for Michelle Smith.

If it is a disadvantage to the pitcher, why aren't the coaches talking to the pitcher instead of the umpire? :rolleyes:

Don't think I'll hold my breath waiting on that answer.:cool:

Its not just softball:

Watching the UT/TCU super regionals on ESPN. wide throw to 1st base by F5 and there is some contact by BR and F3. Announcer says;

"ya know, that could be called interference obstruction on the batter. The umpire has to be aware if this and call the runner out. The 1st baseman is protected and the runner can't touch him. The have to run in the second lane called the running lane and if they don't, they are out. I think that was interference obstruction.'