girls hardball

[wesw]

someone please post the clip of the catcher knocking two girls on their butts for me. please?

[Big RR]

Here's a link to the video. I saw it on the news.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015 ... _scho.html

[Sue U]

Cheap shots, incredibly poor sportsmanship. She should have been benched after the first incident.

[Big RR]

I would think the umpire should have ejected her the first time, but definitely after doing it twice.

[Gob]

So badass they put her in a cage!

[wesw]

that is hardball folks, that catcher did not even move her feet or toward them at all, they ran un neccesarily close to her to brush by her when there was no need and no play at the plate, she was not blocking the plate, she had her position and simply maintained it. I want her on my team....

it was actually just a little butt bump that sent them flying, the forearms were just for show...

both runners tried to throw a shoulder into her as they passed, they just were out of their league...

she big leagued em....

she s all about that base, all about that base.....

[Joe Guy]

If the girls had slidden into home, they wouldn't have fallen...

[MajGenl.Meade]

If the girls had slidded into home, they wouldn't have falled...

ftfy

[wesw]

I letted that one go......

[Joe Guy]

slid·den (slĭd′n)
v. Archaic
A past participle of slide.

I occasionally have verbally archaic tendencies (VAT)...

[wesw]

that s why I let it go.

[MajGenl.Meade]

slid·den (slĭd′n)
v. Archaic
A past participle of slide.

I occasionally have verbally archaic tendencies (VAT)...

[Lord Jim]

There was no need to slide, because there was no play at the plate.

In MLB, a cheap shot like that would empty the benches...

She should have been tossed from the game, and when she got home she should have been grounded.

[Big RR]

I agree Jim. No reason at all to slide. And if I were the umpire, or her coach, I would have tossed her out of the game.

Wes--admittedly we haven't seen all the angles, but it appears to me she deliberately bumped and knocked them over because they scored. Yes, they did kind of tuck and lead with their shoulders, but that is fairly common to protect themselves if she chose to step backwards and block the plate (and they had no way of knowing what she was going to do (and let's not forget, it was she that made contact, not either of them). She had no play, didn't have the ball, and had no reason to make contact with them.

[Guinevere]

Look up "Obstruction." A fielder who is not in the process of fielding the ball may not impede the progress of the runner. She was not fielding the ball (there wasn't even a throw to the plate by the time the runners crossed), and she impeded the runner. She should have been tossed for a rules violation the first time, and definitely the second. A poor sport, at best.

(my nephew is a catcher, he agrees with me)

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's correct. Two cheap-shots by the catcher who had no business being where she was - in my view, she was obstructing the plate and made a deliberate move to further block it. Both runners had to pick themselves up and go back to touch the plate (and I'm not sure the 2nd one did but that's my eyes perhaps).

Those would be flagrant in basketball and the second would have been a definite ejection if not the first. Disgusting.

[rubato]

"That's the way the girls are in Texas"



yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

she did not block the plate . she was not even over the foul line. they went at the bull to put an un necessary exclamation point on their run and they got the horns. she established a non blocking position and allowed them a path to the plate, they chose to play hardball.

I coached little league and umpired for 12 yrs. there was no foul by the catcher, the runners initiated the contact and could have been called out for it.

I would have let the plays stand as they stood, just as the umpire rightly did.

if I was the coach my only problem would have been that the infielders did not get the ball to catcher so she could have tagged them out as they returned to touch home plate. watch the catchers feet, she had one foot on the foul line and the other inside it, she allowed a path to the plate, as the rules demand, the runners chose not to take the clear path but to turn into the catcher.

if the runner had been standing on third, she would have had to allow them about 6 more inches. they were not they were rounding third at high speed and in a wide arc and chose to veer into the catcher un neccesarily

play on, baseball ain t bean bag...., or soccer

[MajGenl.Meade]

Let's add blindness to your list of symptoms. The catcher's left foot is clearly in the base running path and she is obstructing the plate. She initiates contact when she knows she does not have and IS NOT GOING TO GET the ball. The runner does not know where the ball is and (especially #1) is entitled to brace for impact, anticipating that the catcher will go for the out.

In both cases, the catcher deliberately moved closer to the runner and elbowed both out of the running path and away from the plate. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight (but it's not nice to hit the blind)

[wesw]

stick to cricket and tea and crumpets. the baseline is not the rule, the rule is that that the runner cannot alter their path to the base to avoid a tag or interfere with the fielder. the runners both altered their paths and interfered