Blue Opinion?
- Thread starter tbaydog
- Start date
It doesn't look malicious but per some discussion I read on twitter apparently the rule prohibits you from making contact with your arms extended or something to that affect. It's kinda like the targeting calls in football. It's very subjective. Not malicious but per the rule, technically speaking, it apparently was a violation.
Last edited:
Not malicious. He is preparing for the contact that he will be subjected to because of where the catcher is positioned.
Blocking the plate is a dumb allowance, especially without the ball in this instance.
Blocking the plate is a dumb allowance, especially without the ball in this instance.
Definitely doesn’t look malicious, but like salty said, just depends on how the rule reads. Situations like this are some of the most frustrating things about sports, imo. A case of just overcomplicating things. I understand the need for a rule to protect catchers to a certain extent, but man…
I was gonna post about this last night. The runner had no option and the catcher was blocking the plate illegally. It was a terrible call, and they lost by that one run.
Screw Oregon, but I thought that was just an awful call. Some argue that the “malicious” contact superseded the block, but I don’t know what else the runner could’ve done with him blocking the plate. How’s he gonna slide??
Screw Oregon, but I thought that was just an awful call. Some argue that the “malicious” contact superseded the block, but I don’t know what else the runner could’ve done with him blocking the plate. How’s he gonna slide??
If you're going to eject the runner then eject the catcher too.
I’ve been saying this for years, especially with football. Reviews should have a time limit. If you can’t figure it out in, say, 60 seconds, play stands as called on the field.
Macron's wife hit him harder than that ! Sheeesh
If a review takes more than 30 seconds, then there was no reason for a review in the first place
The catcher blocking the plate rule in baseball is like the handball rule in soccer. Nobody knows what the hell it is. It is very subjective. The night before, Oregon got a break against UCLA in softball when the umps ruled after a review that the catcher obstructed the runner even though the catcher had the ball and the runner was out by 10 feet. Then last night they don’t rule obstruction and rule malicious contact instead when the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball. I don’t understand and it appears the umpires don’t either.
That didn't look anything like obstruction, but, since it was called against THE University of Northern MS, I'll allow it
In some ways I hate what sports is becoming. Over-officiating & pinheads in review booths is ruining it.
The runner would have missed the bag though. Do you think the ump would have counted the run in that case?