Posted by edsortails on 10/15/2015 6:30:00 AM (view original):
an inadvertent whistle stops a play whether it could be ruled the player would have scored a TD or not.....time out should mean time out, no matter if they got the rule right on the actual play itself

and I can't stand Texas or Toronto, so who got a favorable ruling doesn't matter in the slightest to me

Which is why I like the current trend in baseball so much, which is making sure the call is right, and not making the umpires these holy figures.

Obviously in a contact sport that's played with whistles (football, hockey, even basketball to an extent), you can't have people continuing play after the whistle. But this call was exactly right.

And I was going for the Blue Jays, and was upset at the time it happened.

In football/hockey, people get blown up if you don't stop playing at the whistle. 

Posted by crazystengel on 10/14/2015 8:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/9/2015 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Nice job.    Stick with hookey, eh?

The Cliff Clavin of WIS steps on his own wang.  Again.  Eh?

I'm surprised we didn't hear all the reasons he KNOWS Texas is better and how they would certainly win if the series was played again. Give him credit for semi-accepting he was wrong. Still couldn't do it without name-calling, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Remember, he's striving to keep all threads strictly on topic.

Posted by edsortails on 10/15/2015 6:30:00 AM (view original):
an inadvertent whistle stops a play whether it could be ruled the player would have scored a TD or not.....time out should mean time out, no matter if they got the rule right on the actual play itself

and I can't stand Texas or Toronto, so who got a favorable ruling doesn't matter in the slightest to me

They got the call right. Even if he hadn't called time, Odor scores without a throw.

but he did call time, so the ball should have been dead and the run should not have counted. Doesn't matter that the ump should not have called time. He did.

This doesn't happen if the batter didn't have to stay in the batter's box

Posted by wylie715 on 10/15/2015 1:02:00 PM (view original):
but he did call time, so the ball should have been dead and the run should not have counted. Doesn't matter that the ump should not have called time. He did.

Nope. Baseball assigns dead ball runners to bases all the time. It's even in the rules:

5.02 ...While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field).

The umps can make the judgement that Odor would have scored absent the timeout and count the run.

I don't understand why the rules would dictate that it wasn't a dead ball... with the rule how it is apparently written, the batter should be playing defense against the catcher throwing the ball back to the pitcher every time a runner is on base.

Or the catcher should just pay attention to where he's throwing and the batter's position.    If he hits the batter intentionally, dead ball.   If the batter is out of the box, dead ball.   If he haphazardly flings it back to the pitcher without a LH batter in the box and hits the batter, live ball.    Martin ****** up.

Posted by kcden on 10/15/2015 2:22:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why the rules would dictate that it wasn't a dead ball... with the rule how it is apparently written, the batter should be playing defense against the catcher throwing the ball back to the pitcher every time a runner is on base.

It's the umpires job to determine intent. Choo clearly wasn't trying to interfere, so the ball is live. It's on the catcher not to **** that up.

so, are we going to see batters trying to get in the way of throw's back to the pitchers now?

That would be illegal.   What we'll see is catchers making sure they're clear before throwing to the pitcher.

Posted by crazystengel on 10/14/2015 8:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/9/2015 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Nice job.    Stick with hookey, eh?

The Cliff Clavin of WIS steps on his own wang.  Again.  Eh?

10/14/2015 9:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 41085 (18)
LOL at the assclowns coming out after the fact. Shut it, 'tards.


Careful crazy, some posters love to dish it out, but they can't take it back. They TRY (unsuccessfully so far) to get you red lined so others can't read the abuse they're taking. It's a shame they can't just stick to discussing the subject at hand without the name-calling and disparaging remarks.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2015 2:36:00 PM (view original):
That would be illegal.   What we'll see is catchers making sure they're clear before throwing to the pitcher.

how would it be illegal if it wasn't illegal yesterday? Is it just a matter of intent? How do you prove intent?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Or the catcher should just pay attention to where he's throwing and the batter's position.    If he hits the batter intentionally, dead ball.   If the batter is out of the box, dead ball.   If he haphazardly flings it back to the pitcher without a LH batter in the box and hits the batter, live ball.    Martin ****** up.

He's got the bat awful far out there, basically at the edge of the plate:



Is the catcher supposed to be able to anticipate when the batter might stick his arm/bat out?

Deadball makes sense to me...