*****Aggies vs. Lamar*****

47,596 Views | 788 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by Hornbeck
Bondag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
trouble said:

Bondag said:

AggieNattie said:

Ghost of Bisbee said:

What happened?

Ejected from tonight's game after arguing a non reviewable call. One of the worst missed calls you will ever see. Not even kidding.


He was not ejected for a non reviewable call. He was ejected after it was followed by a HR and he told Jeff where he could find his Head.


He wasn't yelling at Jeff. He was yelling at Jared Moehlmann


Yea, but it was Jeff's crew and I didn't want to say Jarred had his Moehlmann up his ass
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But Jeff can't force HP to change their opinion on it if he couldn't see it clearly.

I'm gonna have to go take another shower.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, it looked like Jeff looked at him to see if he wanted a second opinion but Moehlmann clearly didn't.
BoerneGator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The thing about it is that it was SOOOOO very close that it was easy to miss the call. Thus the need to verify the call with a quick check of the video. The responsible thing to have done was to simply verify that the proper call was made. The crew compounded the mistake, and should be required to suffer some consequences, but we know they will not.
Bondag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
trouble said:

No, it looked like Jeff looked at him to see if he wanted a second opinion but Moehlmann clearly didn't.


You are being sent to the showers today more than Michael Earley
strbrst777
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Bisbee said:

Where's that one poster that was protecting Jeff head over the weekend?

Starbrst77, wya?
. I was not "protecting" anyone. I was saying that in 1968, Jeff and my youngest son (now deceased) at age 6 were on the same T--ball team at Hoover, Alabama. And for several years, they were on the same youth baseball and football teams. Lots of good memories of those days.
StinkyPinky
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoerneGator said:

The thing about it is that it was SOOOOO very close that it was easy to miss the call. Thus the need to verify the call with a quick check of the video. The responsible thing to have done was to simply verify that the proper call was made. The crew compounded the mistake, and should be required to suffer some consequences, but we know they will not.
This is the voice or reason
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoerneGator said:

The thing about it is that it was SOOOOO very close that it was easy to miss the call. Thus the need to verify the call with a quick check of the video. The responsible thing to have done was to simply verify that the proper call was made. The crew compounded the mistake, and should be required to suffer some consequences, but we know they will not.



Here is my issue. Absolutely no hustle. He is on the plate when the play happens. He then continues to walk forward even after making the safe call to make it appear he was down the line. I realize it was 10-2 but he isn't some pony ump making $50. He should still try. Instead he half assed it and then acted like he knew he got it right.
tjack16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also every play should be eligible for review. What is the reasoning for that one not being eligible?
RED AG 98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoerneGator said:

The thing about it is that it was SOOOOO very close that it was easy to miss the call. Thus the need to verify the call with a quick check of the video. The responsible thing to have done was to simply verify that the proper call was made. The crew compounded the mistake, and should be required to suffer some consequences, but we know they will not.
Zero issue with the call on the field. This was a very difficult call for HP and while Jeff appears to be looking right it, easy to see where he felt he didn't have enough to overturn.

The bigger issue for me is just the use of replay in baseball, period. The SEC has had replay for ~10 years now, and I think the original reviewable / non-reviewable rules were largely due to pace of play concerns (well and maybe a little bit of protecting the umps too).

Since then, the pitch clock and other pace of play adjustments have been made and the speed of reviews has generally gotten a lot better (esp. for conference games where it is centralized...). I think they need to reconsider what is reviewable and just get it right, or do away with it altogether (which isn't going to happen).
BoerneGator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The arbitrariness of what is and is not reviewable and the unfairness of seemingly arbitrary decisions by fallible humans is what causes so much distrust and disrespect for the authority displayed by incompetent umpires. They are far too numerous for the good of the game. Technology is available to assist them to do their jobs, and it's frustrating when arbitrariness prevents its usage.
CFO64763
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reno Hightower
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bring

On

The Robots
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reno Hightower said:

Bring

On

The Robots


Welcome, robot overlords!
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have you seen how messed up and inaccurate much AI seems to be?
QuesoMuchacho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hornbeck said:

Reno Hightower said:

Bring

On

The Robots


Welcome, robot overlords!



Strike 3. You are Terminated!
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
tjack16 said:

Also every play should be eligible for review. What is the reasoning for that one not being eligible?
How long would you like baseball games to take?
Gig 'Em
tjack16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anonymous Source said:

tjack16 said:

Also every play should be eligible for review. What is the reasoning for that one not being eligible?
How long would you like baseball games to take?


For a coaches challenge I think any play should be eligible outside of balls and strikes. But limit how many coaches challenges there are (maybe 2-3 per game for each side regardless if you lose one or not).
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tjack16 said:

Anonymous Source said:

tjack16 said:

Also every play should be eligible for review. What is the reasoning for that one not being eligible?
How long would you like baseball games to take?


For a coaches challenge I think any play should be eligible outside of balls and strikes. But limit how many coaches challenges there are (maybe 2-3 per game for each side regardless if you lose one or not).
That makes wwwwaaaaayyyyy too much sense. This is the NCAA, sir, not a Wendy's.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.