April 16, 201412 yr Not sure. I think he was called out before the catcher picked it up. Why does it matter? It doesn't, it was foul, however, some simple common sense there would have avoided the call, he'd have had one more pitch to waive at likely and no change would have come.
April 16, 201412 yr I would argue your opinion doesn't have any support in the rulebook. Intent is not mentioned. My recollection says Cueto did not move until after contact. No assumption there. No one can move until after contact. And the rule allows for interpretation. Says it there in black and white. And additionally, intent sure does have something to do with it or there wouldn't be a need for a disclaimer for incidental contact with a fielder.
April 16, 201412 yr No one can move until after contact. And the rule allows for interpretation. Says it there in black and white. By "contact" I meant that Cueto didn't attempt to leave the box until after he and the catcher collided. That's why he was out. He made no attempt to get out of the fielder's way.
April 16, 201412 yr It doesn't, it was foul, however, some simple common sense there would have avoided the call, he'd have had one more pitch to waive at likely and no change would have come. I'm not following. Are you saying the umpire should have ignored it because it was a pitcher batting who was likely to get out on the next pitch?
April 16, 201412 yr Not sure. I think he was called out before the catcher picked it up. Why does it matter? Well if it's up the 1st baseline I can see why Cueto would have stayed in the box to avoid interfering with the fielder.
April 16, 201412 yr The call that should be argued is the play at the plate where the catcher blocked the plate prior to the ball being in his glove. That seemed like a miss to me.
April 16, 201412 yr Well if it's up the 1st baseline I can see why Cueto would have stayed in the box to avoid interfering with the fielder. Gotcha. I thought you were referring to fair vs foul.
April 16, 201412 yr I'm not following. Are you saying the umpire should have ignored it because it was a pitcher batting who was likely to get out on the next pitch?Come on Clyde, had nothing to do with that. Cueto paused for a second, didn't know where the ball was, then coincidentally tried to leave the box when the catcher tried to run thru him.
April 16, 201412 yr The call that should be argued is the play at the plate where the catcher blocked the plate prior to the ball being in his glove. That seemed like a miss to me. Obviously NY didn't think so. I have to assume they thought that the catcher, even though he blocked the plate, had the ball before the slide started. Rule says plate can be blocked once the catcher has the ball, correct?
April 16, 201412 yr Come on Clyde, had nothing to do with that. Cueto paused for a second, didn't know where the ball was, then coincidentally tried to leave the box when the catcher tried to run thru him. Your wording about the "next pitch" confused me. You just described why he was out. He got in the way as a runner.
April 16, 201412 yr Your wording about the "next pitch" confused me. You just described why he was out. He got in the way as a runner. No I didn't. He left at the same time the catcher made an attempt thru him. Incidental if you ask me
April 16, 201412 yr Obviously NY didn't think so. I have to assume they thought that the catcher, even though he blocked the plate, had the ball before the slide started. Rule says plate can be blocked once the catcher has the ball, correct? I'll be honest. I don't know the exact wording of the new rule but I think you're right. This picture though is why I thought it would be overturned. https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/456520728557277184/photo/1
April 16, 201412 yr No I didn't. He left at the same time the catcher made an attempt thru him. Incidental if you ask me We either saw it differently or we're reading the rule differently. Enjoyed the debate but I'm actually off to umpire a game. Hopefully, this play doesn't come up.
April 16, 201412 yr We either saw it differently or we're reading the rule differently. Enjoyed the debate but I'm actually off to umpire a game. Hopefully, this play doesn't come up. Just trip the catcher.
April 16, 201412 yr I'll be honest. I don't know the exact wording of the new rule but I think you're right. This picture though is why I thought it would be overturned. https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/456520728557277184/photo/1 So is a runner to be called safe automatically if the catcher blocks the plate without having possession of the ball?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.