Talking with Ryle and Conner fans no one knew who the disorderly guy was who was ejected. I heard he was everybody from Roesel's dad to the new Pope Francis. Skipping over the controversy, lets say even if the ump totally blew the player ejection call, letting the kid pull his car the backstop and blare music so loud it interrupted the game is ridiculous. That's on the coach.

Blake Maines impressed pitching and with the stick, I believe he had 3 doubles and managed his composure well when a few errors happened. He kept Conner close. Mitch See pitched masterfully and Jake Ashley gunning down Fogle and Ross was stellar. Baumann adding another triple to the school record and Tyler Mason I believe 2 more doubles helped Ryle out pace the Cougars. It was a very exciting game.

 

Not sure if you were at this game or this comment is simply hearsay, but I was at the game, standing behind the backstop, and the player who was ejected did not pull his car to the fence to play music. As a matter of fact, the only vehicle that was parked behind the backstop was the athletic trainer's golf cart, and Mr. Stellman's pickup truck.

Exactly how much did one have to pay to get in and watch this dog and pony show???

 

C'mon man, this is embarrassing for everyone...

I'm still not clear as to why the catcher was ejected. Anyone?

I'm still not clear as to why the catcher was ejected. Anyone?

 

Clyde, I beleive the rule states that unless there is a play at the plate with a ball in transit to the catcher, the catcher cannot block the plate of interfere with the base runner crossing the plate. The ball should have never been thrown to home, should have went to 2b. The throw was actually caught by the pitcher in the 3rd base path after the runner crossed the plate. The catcher for Conner actually blocked the runner with his leg, appeared to try and force a trip. Home plate ump got the correct call for interference. This rule has been in effect for decades in high school and youth baseball.

Clyde, there was an earlier altercation between Maines and Brennan at the plate. Maines either tripped Brennan or Brennan tried to make it look that way and both teams got a warning. The next inning, there was a play at the plate involving I believe Brennan again. Hart blocked the plate and Maines ran over into the 3rd base line and cut the ball off. They threw him out for tripping the player. Im not totally sure but I always thought that the catcher had the right to the plate in that situation

Exactly how much did one have to pay to get in and watch this dog and pony show???

 

C'mon man, this is embarrassing for everyone...

 

4 dollars

Clyde, there was an earlier altercation between Maines and Brennan at the plate. Maines either tripped Brennan or Brennan tried to make it look that way and both teams got a warning. The next inning, there was a play at the plate involving I believe Brennan again. Hart blocked the plate and Maines ran over into the 3rd base line and cut the ball off. They threw him out for tripping the player. Im not totally sure but I always thought that the catcher had the right to the plate in that situation

 

If there is no play at the plate, the catcher can't block the plate. Since the throw from the outfield was cut off, technically there was no "play". The umps interpreted the rule in the way they saw fit. In my opinion, the Conner catcher shouldn't have been run, but he was.

It's sad to watch an athletic director forced to baby-sit adults during a high school event. Then to watch him personally escort both umpires out the back right field gate in order to keep away from the parents.

Sweeper; it only cost $4 bucks for this kinda entertainment. Embarrassing situation. BTW: The BC Sheffiff's did make several courtesy laps around the school after the show.

This is not the first time this has happened with either one of those players and anybody that is on here from conner or seen these two in the summer knows exactly what im talking about and if i was a gambling man i would bet that mrs. Hart was one of the pets in the dog and pony show.

If there is no play at the plate, the catcher can't block the plate. Since the throw from the outfield was cut off, technically there was no "play". The umps interpreted the rule in the way they saw fit. In my opinion, the Conner catcher shouldn't have been run, but he was.

 

I always thought the rule was that the catcher can only block the plate if he has the ball, or is that what you mean by a "play at the plate".

This is not the first time this has happened with either one of those players and anybody that is on here from conner or seen these two in the summer knows exactly what im talking about and if i was a gambling man i would bet that mrs. Hart was one of the pets in the dog and pony show.

 

True or not, this comment is out of line, and FYI.. If you were betting on this one, you'd loose your money

I always thought the rule was that the catcher can only block the plate if he has the ball, or is that what you mean by a "play at the plate".

 

If the ball is on its way to him, i.e. a throw from the field, he has the right to position himself for a play at the plate. In this situation, he was positioned in front of the plate, awaiting a throw from left field. This throw was sub sequentially cut off, therefore, there was no "Play", and the umpire deemed he was blocking the plate with no cause..

Sorry if i offended anyone but when there is a history of this thats seems to follow a certain person you can only imagine. You can't block the plate WITHOUT the ball at anytime.

If the ball is on its way to him, i.e. a throw from the field, he has the right to position himself for a play at the plate. In this situation, he was positioned in front of the plate, awaiting a throw from left field. This throw was sub sequentially cut off, therefore, there was no "Play", and the umpire deemed he was blocking the plate with no cause..

 

 

Wasn't there, not a member or parent of either team...........just have a question for the rule hounds out there.....

 

Since the ball was "cut off" down the third base line, isn't that an attempt at a play at home? The catcher doesn't know if it is coming through or not, so shouldn't he assume that it is and try to take position? If it gets cut AFTER that, then he doesn't have control.......

 

If he took position AFTER the ball was cut and redirected away from home, then it would seem like the ump made the correct call.

 

For those that were there.....and are objective (you self assess)........which was it?

Wasn't there, not a member or parent of either team...........just have a question for the rule hounds out there.....

 

Since the ball was "cut off" down the third base line, isn't that an attempt at a play at home? The catcher doesn't know if it is coming through or not, so shouldn't he assume that it is and try to take position? If it gets cut AFTER that, then he doesn't have control.......

 

If he took position AFTER the ball was cut and redirected away from home, then it would seem like the ump made the correct call.

 

For those that were there.....and are objective (you self assess)........which was it?

 

I posted this earlier. Catcher was set up to receive the throw from left field, ball in the air, on it's way home, catcher in position.. After the catcher was positioned, the ball was cut off. In no way was he to know the ball was going to be cut off 3/4 of the way down the 3rd base line. That is why I said it was a judgement call by the ump, and he deemed it was necessary to run the catcher.