Selig should grow some balls... Topic

Jtpsops
Posts: 15881 (2)
Hall of Famer
772 1 2 2 146
Prospect
As for the pine tar comment...you didn't say "the pine tar game was overturned after the fact". You said "every call ever overturned is after the fact." 99.99% of overturned calls are overturned WITHIN THE GAME. Not afterwards.
6/10/2010 3:40 PM
winner77
Posts: 546 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
6/10/2010 3:43 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2010The Pine Tar game was upholding a protest on a rules interpretation.  It did not overturn an umpire's judgement call, which is non-protestable.  Two completely different things.We covered this back on page four of this thread.

Factually incorrect.

The pine tar rule specified removing the bat from the game - every other aspect of what happened that day was at the umpire's discretion. A judgement call.
6/10/2010 3:47 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/10/2010 3:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By Jtpsops on 6/10/2010
Quote: Originally posted by bosoxbill on 6/10/2010
Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 6/10/2010 I fully expect the replay system will change (there seems to be a lot of favour for the NFL challenge-type system),
Do you think this is good for baseball? I think I remember you saying that you disapprove of it, generally.

I don't really support replay, but does that mean I don't think changes are coming? You just like to attach meaning to things at your own desire.

And while I'm opposed to replay, do I think offering each manager one challenge per game, in specified situations, will destroy the game of baseball? No, I don't, especially since (unlike in the NFL), those challenges will likely go unused 80-90% of the time


So, more specifically, you don't think it will create disastrous situations like the call at first?
6/10/2010 3:48 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 6/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2010

The Pine Tar game was upholding a protest on a rules interpretation. It did not overturn an umpire's judgement call, which is non-protestable. Two completely different things.

We covered this back on page four of this thread.

Factually incorrect.

The pine tar rule specified removing the bat from the game - every other aspect of what happened that day was at the umpire's discretion. A judgement call.
Holy cow. Are you serious?

I'll refer you to my post of 6/03/2010 at 9:14 pm on page four. Please, tell me what part of my comment is incorrect?

Here's an additional reference for you as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident#Protest_and_reversal
6/10/2010 3:50 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15881 (2)
Hall of Famer
772 1 2 2 146
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/10/2010 3:59 PM
winner77
Posts: 546 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/10/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 6/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2010

The Pine Tar game was upholding a protest on a rules interpretation. It did not overturn an umpire's judgement call, which is non-protestable. Two completely different things.

We covered this back on page four of this thread.

Factually incorrect.

The pine tar rule specified removing the bat from the game - every other aspect of what happened that day was at the umpire's discretion. A judgement call.
Holy cow. Are you serious?

I'll refer you to my post of 6/03/2010 at 9:14 pm on page four. Please, tell me what part of my comment is incorrect?

Here's an additional reference for you as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident#Protest_and_reversal

Bosoxbill gets owned....1 point for Tecwrg
6/10/2010 4:02 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
That's strange... did he read that stuff before he pasted the link?

Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." However, the rule did not indicate any possible penalty for the batter, or even if one was permitted.
Citing this, McClelland (urged on by Billy Martin) invoked "The Umpire's Prerogative", Rule 9.01(c), which states "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

An umpire's judgement call.
6/10/2010 4:14 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
So jtpsops -

You don't support replay.

But you think expansions to replay are coming? And you don't support them.

Just tell me if I'm wrong in those statements. About what you think. Or don't think.
6/10/2010 4:18 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 6/10/2010That's strange... did he read that stuff before he pasted the link?

Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." However, the rule did not indicate any possible penalty for the batter, or even if one was permitted.
Citing this, McClelland (urged on by Billy Martin) invoked "The Umpire's Prerogative", Rule 9.01(c), which states "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

An umpire's judgement call
Uh, no. McClelland's ruling (not judgement call) was an interpretation (or in that example, an improper application) of a rule in the rulebook. Kansas City protested that McClelland could not overturn the homerun by invoking rule 9.01(c). Lee McPhail agreed.

Umpire's judgement calls are not protestable. Umpires rulings are protestable.

Even a dunce such as you should be able to understand the difference.

Please explain why the Royals were able to file a protest in the Pine Tar game, while the Tigers were not able to file a protest in the Galarraga game.
6/10/2010 4:49 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15881 (2)
Hall of Famer
772 1 2 2 146
Prospect
I fail to see how they contradict each other.

If I had the choice, things would stay the way they are. That's my personal preference. But I think changes are coming.

I still need you to explain to me how, just because I think changes are coming, I can't disagree with those changes.

Once again...two separate arguments. You lose one, and latch on to another as if it's the same thing.

I'm opposed to expanded replay, but I think it's coming...two mutually exclusive and non-contradictory comments.
6/10/2010 4:49 PM
monkey_taint
Posts: 87 (0)
Prospect
1
Prospect
It's like bosuxballs has given up on life or something.

Either that, or he just got bored this week and decided he wanted to supplant this site's idiot-elite on their thrones.
6/10/2010 4:52 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 6/10/2010I fail to see how they contradict each other.

If I had the choice, things would stay the way they are. That's my personal preference. But I think changes are coming.

I still need you to explain to me how, just because I think changes are coming, I can't disagree with those changes.


You absolutely can disagree with changes you think are coming. I've never said you couldn't. I've just been trying to ask you if you do.

So you disagree with the direction replay is headed in, right? That's a fair statement?

So why are you against something which could fix some of these kinds of accuracy issues WITHOUT involving stopping or slowing for replay?
6/10/2010 5:06 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/10/2010 5:08 PM
◂ Prev 1...21|22|23|24|25...30 Next ▸
Selig should grow some balls... Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.