Keon Broxton acquired and more (DFA Broxton- Claimed by Mariners))

[OFFNY]

o

 

(vs. ROCKIES, 5/24)

 

NUMBER 1

 

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

 

o

[awannabegeek]

3 hours ago, Kaven5 said:

Let's be honest. Broxton is an Oriole because he was cheap. He is obviously not a part of the youth movement. I wish the guy all the best but, the move is worrisome.

He's an Oriole because he is toolsy and they're the type of team that can afford to give him at-bats and see if he can put it together. 

He is not a Brewer or Met anymore because he doesn't make consistent contact, I wouldn't bet on that changing but he is so toolsy you give it shot.  

 

[OFFNY]

o

 

(vs. RANGERS, 6/04)

 

NUMBER 3

 

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

KEON DARELL BROXTON

 

o

[OFFNY]

o

 

(vs. RED SOX, 6/16)

 

Excellent safety-squeeze bunt-single that was overturned by an interference call. 

Not only did he not get the single, he did not get the RBI, either ........ the runner had to go back to 3rd base.

 

o

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OFFNY said:

o

 

(vs. RED SOX, 6/16)

 

Excellent safety-squeeze bunt-single that was overturned by an interference call. 

Not only did he not get the single, he did not get the RBI, either ........ the runner had to go back to 3rd base.

 

o

Not sure how you can call it excellent when it resulted in an out and no runs scored.

[OFFNY]

13 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

(vs. RED SOX, 6/16)

 

Excellent safety-squeeze bunt-single that was overturned by an interference call. 

Not only did he not get the single, he did not get the RBI, either ........ the runner had to go back to 3rd base.

 

o

 

 

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Not sure how you can call it excellent when it resulted in an out, and no runs scored.

 

o

 

Because I thought that it was a bad call, on something that is a controversial rule in the 1st place.

The apparent bunt-single was excellent, and heads-up ........ the results (and the call) were not.

 

 

 

o

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Because I thought that it was a bad call, on something that is a controversial rule in the 1st place.

The apparent bunt-single was excellent, and heads-up ........ the results (and the call) were not.

 

 

 

o

Haven't seen the play but if he was running inside the line that is (another) mental mistake. Unbelievable.

[Sessh]

I agree that it was a bad call. Guys run outside the baseline all the time and doing so is not generally against the rules. The only time an interference call is made is when the act of running outside the baseline interferes with the ability to throw the ball to first base or interferes with the first baseman's ability to catch the ball. Neither were true in this case despite Broxton being outside the baseline. The throw to first from the pitcher took the first baseman into the baseline and was high. It was a bad throw. Broxton's line had nothing to do with anything on that play and it shouldn't have been called interference because no interference took place. It was a bad call.

[atomic]

15 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I agree that it was a bad call. Guys run outside the baseline all the time and doing so is not generally against the rules. The only time an interference call is made is when the act of running outside the baseline interferes with the ability to throw the ball to first base or interferes with the first baseman's ability to catch the ball. Neither were true in this case despite Broxton being outside the baseline. The throw to first from the pitcher took the first baseman into the baseline and was high. It was a bad throw. Broxton's line had nothing to do with anything on that play and it shouldn't have been called interference because no interference took place. It was a bad call.

Why did he run outside the baseline? Seems like a basic task.  I think we are really reaching for things to praise people for now.  This isnt t-ball.  

[Can_of_corn]

38 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I agree that it was a bad call. Guys run outside the baseline all the time and doing so is not generally against the rules. The only time an interference call is made is when the act of running outside the baseline interferes with the ability to throw the ball to first base or interferes with the first baseman's ability to catch the ball. Neither were true in this case despite Broxton being outside the baseline. The throw to first from the pitcher took the first baseman into the baseline and was high. It was a bad throw. Broxton's line had nothing to do with anything on that play and it shouldn't have been called interference because no interference took place. It was a bad call.

I don't think it's a bad call.  It was pretty egregious.

[Number5]

Looking at those pictures, I'd have to say that the ump made a good call there.

[Sessh]

If it was so egregious, then it shouldn't have been a late call. The ball is thrown into the baseline and caught inside the baseline. Running outside the baseline is not an automatic interference call. A good throw makes this a non issue. If he's running in the baseline, the ball hits him in the back of the head. If the runner alone was called out on the play, that's one thing. Making the call knowing the runners would be called back and taking a run off the board was excessive.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

If it was so egregious, then it shouldn't have been a late call. The ball is thrown into the baseline and caught inside the baseline. Running outside the baseline is not an automatic interference call. A good throw makes this a non issue. If he's running in the baseline, the ball hits him in the back of the head. If the runner alone was called out on the play, that's one thing. Making the call knowing the runners would be called back and taking a run off the board was excessive.

Not sending the runner back to third is not an option.  This looks like a text book interference call for runners lane violation to me.  If you don't call it here, you never call it.  Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this.

[Sessh]

Just now, Number5 said:

Not sending the runner back to third is not an option.  This looks like a text book interference call for runners lane violation to me.  If you don't call it here, you never call it.  Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this.

That's fair. The thing is there was no interference on the play. Broxton's running line did not affect the outcome of the play. The bad throw did. In order to call interference, there has to actually be interference. Generally speaking, runners are allowed to run outside the baseline all they want UNLESS doing so interferes with a throw (ball hits the runner going to first while he's out of the baseline) or he's trying to evade a tag or something. Otherwise, running outside the baseline is not a rule violation. My issue is that there was no interference on the play. Even if Broxton is in the baseline here, it doesn't change the fact that the throw was high and an out wouldn't be recorded.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

The only good thing I can say about Broxton is he reminds me of the Mr. Belvedere Fan Club sketch from SNL. Just listen for the part when Mr. Belvedere is referred to as Brocktoon. 

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mr-belvedere-fan-club/n10256