- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: What’s your opinion on the called intentional hit by pitch
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:25 am to geauxpurple
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:25 am to geauxpurple
Do we know (will we ever know) who made the call?
0
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:27 am to Meatball
call was correct, but the rule needs a revision for when it's obviously a ball(inside the batter's box.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:30 am to choupiquesushi
quote:
call was correct, but the rule needs a revision for when it's obviously a ball(inside the batter's box.
just revise to where you can’t extend out over plate.
going down inside the box shouldn’t be an issue
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:30 am to Meatball
bullshite
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:33 am to Meatball
I think it's harsh to penalize a guy for protecting his ribs against a pitch in his own batter's box. That's a natural reaction that I feel was misinterpreted as "making a move to the baseball."
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:36 am to subotic
in this case it was more about rewarding the pitcher for throwing a ball than penalizing the batter
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:54 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
just revise to where you can’t extend out over plate.
The rule shouldn’t even need to be revised for that specific call.
It’s a strike if a batter gets hit in the strike zone.
It’s a strike if a batter allows themselves to be hit by a pitch outside of the box, unless it was unavoidable.
It’s only a strike inside the box of the batter is judged to intentionally be hit by the pitch. The home plate umpire did not make that judgement.
Overturning on video review requires indisputable video evidence. I have no idea how someone can say it is indisputable that he intentionally got hit by that pitch, unless the definition of “indisputable” somehow changed. It is quite literally in dispute.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:59 am to Penrod
quote:
If he remained still he would not have been hit
What? The replays showed quite clearly that the ball was headed for his ribs. He definitely would have been hit.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 12:02 pm to Penrod
quote:
Good question. But if he wanted to avoid getting hit he would have easily done so.
The rule is very explicit that in the batter's box a batter who intentionally does not love out of the way is still awarded a base. Only if the pitch is outside the batter's box does intentionally refusing to avoid the pitch matter.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 12:06 pm to Meatball
Being that it was ball 4 that call was complete bullshite. If it happned on any. Other count I would have not said a word
Posted on 6/22/25 at 12:21 pm to Meatball
The only plus side of it was that I don't think it meant anything. He wouldn't of gotten a run based on next batter's out/s.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News