Bronson Arroyo Sent from Larry's iPhone
On Oct 8, 2008, at 7:13 AM, "Beaudoin, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you might find a rule dealing with "intent" > > Such as Reggie Jackson sticking out his hip to stop a DP on his way > from 1st to 2nd, or when ARod whacked the ball out of Whatshisname's > glove on his way to first. Starts with a "B". Plays guitar. Oh God > I'm so tired. I'll remember as soon as I hit send. I know it. > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed Oct 08 06:01:13 2008 > Subject: Re: Ripken > If an ump did that to me, John, I would not have accepted it. I > would have played the game under protest. > > There is no "judgment call" when it comes to the rules. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Beaudoin, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > The rule book says 250 ft. > So, even if it leaves the field bouncing off a glove or head, then > it should still be a HR if it's 250ft or more from homeplate and > stiil before the foul pole. But i don't think it would ever be > ruled that way. I think all would accept GRD as the ruling. There > are the rules and then there's reality. > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed Oct 08 05:51:15 2008 > Subject: Re: Ripken > That's a different case because it hit the ground. In that case, > its the same as if the fielder threw it into the stands. The runner > gets the base he's approaching and the next one. In that case it > probably means the runner winds up on 3rd. I doubt an umpire would > rule that a ball would have been an in the park home run without the > boot. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Lobosco, Angelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > Hmmmm.... > > > > Would that mean if a ball is hit into the corner, lands fair, and > then the fielder "accidentally" boots it into the stands foul, it is > a ground-rule double? Don't like the sound of that one... > > > > -Angelo > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Matt & Olga McSorley > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Ripken > > > > Still a ground rule double. By hitting the outfielder's head, it's a > fair ball in play. If it had bounced over the wall in fair territory > (recall Jose Canseco) it would have been a home run. But by bouncing > into the seats foul, it has to be a ground rule double. > > > > -- Matt > > --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Ray Salemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Ray Salemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Ripken > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 5:46 PM > > Here's a rule question I think we resolve in the office. > > Bay's ground-rule double hit the ground fair and bounced into the > stands in foul territory for a ground rule double. > > What if it had high the right fielder in the head in fair territory > and gone into the stands in the same spot without touching the ground? > > Ray > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Steve Gendron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ripken made the point that whenever there is a collision at the > plate the umpire always waits to see if the catcher is still holding > the ball before making the out call - so why should this be any > different? However, I think the difference is that if the collision > causes the ball to come loose, then the runner would be safe. But > in this case, the runner was tagged, Varitek was in control and the > subsequent fall caused the ball to come loose. If the ball came > loose in the act of tagging, the runner would have been safe, but > that obviously was not the case. > > > > By the way, I thought Eck seemed a little nervous on the TBS > broadcast. Not quite crisp as I'm used to hearing him on NESN. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Tom Salemi > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Dave Campbell is a tool > > Cal Ripken raised a point on the post game. He didn't go as far as > say he should be safe, but he asked what about when there's a > collision at teh plate. If the catcher falls back after the > collision and drops the ball, the runner would be called safe. No > one had an answer as to why teh calls would be differnet. The anchor > guy said maybe it's because the runner dislodged the ball as he > tried to get to teh base. > > > > I don't see a controversy. The runner was called out five or six > feet down teh basepath. > > As for Campbell, so what? So what if we'd be outraged. We're going > to base calls on whether or not they upset the fans?? > > > > Aybar blew it (and I think Scoscia frankly overmanaged.) THe ump was > fine. Scoscia only cried for 10-20 seconds. For a manager who gripes > about every ball and strike it came across as a clearly just-for- > show argument. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Beaudoin, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > There is no controversy for anyone but disgruntled Angels fans. > When in > doubt, ask a non-partisan baseball fan. Even Yankee fans would agree > with the call. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Ouellette > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:36 AM > To: Red Sox Citizens > Subject: Dave Campbell is a tool > > > He's on the radio going on and on about how the runner should have > been > safe after the missed squeeze bunt because Varitek dropped the ball > after the tag. How Boston would be in an uproar if a similar call had > been made against the Sox. > > He had the ball. He tagged the runner. He stumbled a couple of steps, > fell, hit the ground and the ball popped out. Where is the > controversy? > > Steve O > > > > > > > -- > Blog: http://blog.raysalemi.com > > "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?" - > Gertrude Stein > > > </table > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Blog: http://blog.raysalemi.com > > "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?" - > Gertrude Stein > > > > > > > > > -- > Blog: http://blog.raysalemi.com > > "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?" - > Gertrude Stein > > > > > > > DQo=rdW5zdWJzY3JpYmVAZ29vZ2xlZ3Jv ups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > DQo=DQo= --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
