Jump to content

Blocking the plate.


bpilktree

Recommended Posts

The more I watched that play today the madder I am getting. He was so clearly blocking the plate based on the rule and there have been many many calls where it was less obvious then that called blocking the plate. I can not figure what the world they were looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Buck: "If that's not blocking the plate I don't know what is. I'm totally confused now." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/orioles?src=hash">#orioles</a></p>— Roch Kubatko (@masnRoch) <a href="

">August 22, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I think the rule is an abomination. All because of Buster Posey. A rare injury occurs, and they create a rule that was poorly crafted and ambiguous. Having ambiguous rules like that lead to controversy.

And honestly the catcher was blocking the plate prior to receiving the ball. It gave Chris Davis an awkward path to the plate. And then he took more of the plate away once receiving the ball.

That was the turning point in the game. Down 2-0. It's the difference between 2-1 and an inning still going...and 2-0, the O's still pitching Gausman unnecessarily, and the game going south in a hurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most amazing thing was it was the shortest review i can remember too. A huge play and one at the very least was not obvious and they make it that fast yet on easy calls they take forever.

I know people say it was dumb sending him but it was with two outs a lefty throwing heading towards center is a very tough throw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I think the rule is an abomination. All because of Buster Posey. A rare injury occurs, and they create a rule that was poorly crafted and ambiguous. Having ambiguous rules like that lead to controversy.

And honestly the catcher was blocking the plate prior to receiving the ball. It gave Chris Davis an awkward path to the plate. And then he took more of the plate away once receiving the ball.

That was the turning point in the game. Down 2-0. It's the difference between 2-1 and an inning still going...and 2-0, the O's still pitching Gausman unnecessarily, and the game going south in a hurry.

Very well said.

I remember when Ventura went off the rails (and rightly so) when the call went against him and then that very same day a totally similar play in a Nats game went the other way. The plays were almost identical but the replay booth had two different rulings. Hopefully MLB will just get rid of this stupid rule entirely.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad they didn't reverse the play. This isn't the NFL... baseball doesn't need its games being decided by some lame interpretive rule system akin to the tuck rule.

Common sense says he was out. The throw beat him; the tag beat him; and the catcher did his best to stay out of the baseline but had to reach into it to catch the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad they didn't reverse the play. This isn't the NFL... baseball doesn't need its games being decided by some lame interpretive rule system akin to the tuck rule.

Common sense says he was out. The throw beat him; the tag beat him; and the catcher did his best to stay out of the baseline but had to reach into it to catch the ball.

The problem is, as it is in the NFL, it's not called consistently one way or the other.

More evidence that replay is a joke and a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I think the rule is an abomination. All because of Buster Posey. A rare injury occurs, and they create a rule that was poorly crafted and ambiguous. Having ambiguous rules like that lead to controversy.

And honestly the catcher was blocking the plate prior to receiving the ball. It gave Chris Davis an awkward path to the plate. And then he took more of the plate away once receiving the ball.

That was the turning point in the game. Down 2-0. It's the difference between 2-1 and an inning still going...and 2-0, the O's still pitching Gausman unnecessarily, and the game going south in a hurry.

Perfect post. I agree 100%. The rule sucks, but if you are going to have the rule, enforce it consistently. He was blocking the plate. He was not at first when he was standing in front of the plate, but he shifted his body before he caught the ball to get into the baseline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad they didn't reverse the play. This isn't the NFL... baseball doesn't need its games being decided by some lame interpretive rule system akin to the tuck rule.

Common sense says he was out. The throw beat him; the tag beat him; and the catcher did his best to stay out of the baseline but had to reach into it to catch the ball.

He was in the baseline prior to receiving the ball. If the rule isn't going to be applied properly, then Chris Davis should have completely railroaded him and exploded the ball out of his glove if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah he had it snow coned if there is no rule he is safe because Davis runs him over. The rule there he should be called safe as well. Either way rule or no rule we get a run. well unless the umps make just forget the rule and call their own thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's game really annoyed me. Gausman was bad. Some guys had really awful ABs. The Cubs stole a few hits away with good D. The Cubs got a couple cheap hits that the O's didn't. The screwed up blocking rule. Getting beat by Arrieta and Strop.

Overall, a pretty frustrating game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...