- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Catcher's Interference Rule?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:42 am to Nutriaitch
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:42 am to Nutriaitch
Yeah it doesn’t change the rule but it should have absolutely made a little common sense and game awareness apply. Once the batter bailed and made no attempt to even stay in the box then you have to be 200% sure the catcher violation was so egregious that it had to be called. Not only was it not egregious it wasn’t a violation at all.
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:46 am to MOT
quote:
Yeah it doesn’t change the rule but it should have absolutely made a little common sense and game awareness apply. Once the batter bailed and made no attempt to even stay in the box then you have to be 200% sure the catcher violation was so egregious that it had to be called. Not only was it not egregious it wasn’t a violation at all.
oh I agree they blew the call.
just saying that the rule they used is the only rule in the entire book that covers that situation.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:53 am to frogpond11
I did not see him step on or in front of the plate. Everyone saying what the rule is, but did he violate the rule?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:06 am to Stirling
quote:
I did not see him step on or in front of the plate. Everyone saying what the rule is, but did he violate the rule?
i don’t think he did.
but this particular thread is about the rules themselves and their interpretation.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News