So, in other words, it comes down to the ump's judgment call?

 

This is true, I think what the HCHS fans would like to see is for the KHSAA to view both videos and see if they both should have been no calls. In the HCHS game the Beechwood catcher was up the line and the throw was high. Really, both should have been no calls and thus there would be no discussion about the difference in how the umpires ruled the plays. Suspending a kid for the State Tournament on a judgement call is very harsh. He is a Junior. make him sit the first game of next year, but jeez, do not suspend him for the State Tournament on such a questionable judgement call.

If I was then it probably means I had a better view of the play than your wkyt video

 

See thread on Semi-State 3 game where 2 coaches from E Town were ejuected because a Bullitt East player barreled over the E Town catcher and nothing was called. Consistancy by the best umpires the KHSAA has to offer. And as for the video it pretty much explains itself. The Lex Cath player ran over the catcher intentionally.

IMO the ump blew this one. It was clear to me that it was a violation by the runner.

 

However, just because one game has a potential blown call doesn't mean you go back and review other games. That's the way the ball bounces.

Give me a break. The catcher was 2 feet in the grass and in direct line between the runner and the plate. There was no way to avoid a collision and the Lex Cath player braced himself. Great non-call by the umpire.

 

Incorrect. The position of the catcher has no bearing on the call. Its the runner's job to go around him or slide into him.

Lexington Catholic player rolls a catcher and gets nothing and Harrison County player gets suspended 1 game. The KHSAA needs to fix this before the State Tournament starts. Umpire K.M. suspends the Harrison County player one game and Umpire B.E. lets this go with no call. The Harrison County player should be re-instated. Go to this link to see the picture for yourself. You will need to click on more pictures to see the collision.

 

 

 

 

http://www.kentucky.com/813/story/821013.html

Why should the Harrison County player be re-instated? The Lexington Catholic player committed malicious contact and the umpire blew the call. I guess that if you get a speeding ticket for doing 80 mph in a 70 zone, and I pass you later on and I am doing 80 mph and a cop passes us both; then you should not have to pay your ticket, because the second officer chose not to ticket me. You want to pitch a "tizzy", rag on the umpire that did not make the correct call.

Why should the Harrison County player be re-instated? The Lexington Catholic player committed malicious contact and the umpire blew the call. I guess that if you get a speeding ticket for doing 80 mph in a 70 zone, and I pass you later on and I am doing 80 mph and a cop passes us both; then you should not have to pay your ticket, because the second officer chose not to ticket me. You want to pitch a "tizzy", rag on the umpire that did not make the correct call.

 

Which one, it happened in the Etown game too.

Which one, it happened in the Etown game too.

So two wrongs cancel out one right? Let me make sure that I have this correct; two kids don't get caught doing something wrong, so a third kid who does wrong and gets caught does not have to suffer and consequences. Sounds like a typical argument a parent would give to take up for little Johnny. Or better yet if you are in the section of Applebee's Park just below the VIP boxes and I am urinating on you, and two people beside you say that it is raining, but the guy in front of you says, "Hey do you realize that someone is urinating on you?" Your response, according to your previous argument, would be, "No it is not because these two people say it is raining". Why should I have ever doubted your argument, you sit right there and believe that it is raining.

So two wrongs cancel out one right? Let me make sure that I have this correct; two kids don't get caught doing something wrong, so a third kid who does wrong and gets caught does not have to suffer and consequences. Sounds like a typical argument a parent would give to take up for little Johnny. Or better yet if you are in the section of Applebee's Park just below the VIP boxes and I am urinating on you, and two people beside you say that it is raining, but the guy in front of you says, "Hey do you realize that someone is urinating on you?" Your response, according to your previous argument, would be, "No it is not because these two people say it is raining". Why should I have ever doubted your argument, you sit right there and believe that it is raining.

 

They have indoor plumbing at Applebees, you don't have to urinate in the stands. And your urinating comment has nothing to do with a rule call that should be the same with umpires in the same association. I don't have a son named Johnny, but I do know just a little about baseball.

 

How about the kids that ran over the catchers in the other games, if you aren't going to reinstate the other player, then suspend the two that weren't ejected since apparently they should have been. Unless you are saying that it is okay to do it as long as you don't get caught...

Edited June 7, 200917 yr by KY Thorobred

They have indoor plumbing at Applebees, you don't have to urinate in the stands. And your urinating comment has nothing to do with a rule call that should be the same with umpires in the same association. I don't have a son named Johnny, but I do know just a little about baseball.

 

How about the kids that ran over the catchers in the other games, if you aren't going to reinstate the other player, then suspend the two that weren't ejected since apparently they should have been. Unless you are saying that it is okay to do it as long as you don't get caught...

I do agree about your comment about the umpires in the same Association being on the same page. But you were railing for the kid to be re-instated for doing something wrong. Not to many people outside Cythania think that the incident was not textbook malicious contact. Did not say that it was vicious or that the player was trying to hurt the catcher. This rule is in for the safety of all concerned. Just because some umpires don't understand or chose to disregard; does not mean that someone that is charged with malicious contact should not have to suffer consequences when others got away from any consequences, either because the umpire did not know how to apply the rule or chose not to inforce as directed by what I would think their umpire group and the KHSAA. If you re-instate then Harrison's opponent in the State Tourney would have a beaf. If you try to go back and penalize the kids for an umpire (s) failure to to apply rule, then that is a can no one would want opened. You keep talking about it being a judgement call. It is not a safe/out, ball/strike or fair/foul. It is spelled out in the rule book. I can not help that some umpires chose not to follow. Now your argument might be well what about rules in other sports that are ignored or not followed by the letter of the rulebook i.e. traveling/three seconds or holding (football). Malicious contact is a safety rule, so if anything umpires should err on the side of safety. If this gets called more and coaches teach this approach, then you won't have it occur as much, and what I am sure a fine young man would be able to play in the State Tournament this week. Got your private message, and I will respond.

If you try to go back and penalize the kids for an umpire (s) failure to to apply rule, then that is a can no one would want opened.

 

So you are saying even though the right thing to do is to uphold the rule and suspend the players that were in the wrong, it would open up a can that nobody wants to deal with and so you just ignore it.

So you are saying even though the right thing to do is to uphold the rule and suspend the players that were in the wrong, it would open up a can that nobody wants to deal with and so you just ignore it.

The calls were not made, and these (malicious contact) should have been. No I would not think that the KHSAA would want to go back and and suspend a player (s) for a mistake that umpires make, but YES the umpires should be held accountable. You have bad officials just like bad players and coaches and yes fans. As long as these games are being played by humans; the human element (by all four of the above groups) of error is always going to play into the equation. Just go to your game and cheer who you do have playing, and hope that you can get past that first game. That way you don't have a built in excuse if Trinity kicks your lungs in.

The calls were not made, and these (malicious contact) should have been. No I would not think that the KHSAA would want to go back and and suspend a player (s) for a mistake that umpires make, but YES the umpires should be held accountable. You have bad officials just like bad players and coaches and yes fans. As long as these games are being played by humans; the human element (by all four of the above groups) of error is always going to play into the equation. Just go to your game and cheer who you do have playing, and hope that you can get past that first game. That way you don't have a built in excuse if Trinity kicks your lungs in.

 

No execuses here, just want some consistency.

Which one, it happened in the Etown game too.

 

Probably should just let this one lie. But from WHAS video on their web site, what happened in Etown game was NOT malicious contact. It should have been interference on the runner who hit the catcher's mitt (and he should have been called out), but it was NOT malicious contact. Interference doesn't result in ejection.

Probably should just let this one lie.

 

:thumb:

Probably should just let this one lie. But from WHAS video on their web site, what happened in Etown game was NOT malicious contact. It should have been interference on the runner who hit the catcher's mitt (and he should have been called out), but it was NOT malicious contact. Interference doesn't result in ejection.

 

I disagree. The lowering of the shoulder could easily constitute malicious contact. Again, you have two choices. Go around or slide . Leading with your shoulder is a violation.

 

If you don't have malicious contact you also don't have interference.