AND ANOTHER transfer they say wasn't controlled .......

[BalkHawk]

I would be remiss not to point out that this thread title seems to have been authored by a whiny pubescent girl.

"And another" and the comment about losing one's faith seems to mimic a rat quantifying missed calls.

They didn't 'say it wasn't controlled' they ruled as such.

A more suitable title may be "another non-catch, ruled as such" or "professionals get the call right" or even "how to interpret secure possession MLB".

Peace

[grayhawk]

I would be remiss not to point out that this thread title seems to have been authored by a whiny pubescent girl.

"And another" and the comment about losing one's faith seems to mimic a rat quantifying missed calls. A more suitable title may be "another non-catch, ruled as such" or "professionals get the call right" or even "how to interpret secure possession MLB".

Peace

This thread was started before the new interpretation was made public by Hunter. Considering the rulings were made contrary to what each of us had been taught (prior to the new interp), the thread title reflected an appropriate amount of incredulity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BalkHawk]

When one sees a call made on TV that goes against one's initial instinct, one can either think 'Man, they missed it' or 'Man, I (would have) missed it (but now I will use this occasion to learn to be more like the pros.')

Unless one has made his way to another high level of umpiring, the latter will, in the great majority of situations, ring true.

This is one umpire's opinion.

[Jocko]

I personally will continue to use my own judgement regarding voluntary release, just as I always have. And, given that I disagreed with the no catch ruling in the mlb examples given, it's pretty clear which camp I'm in. I dont (currently) work under MLB interps. But when I do, I'm selling the hell out of my on the transfer mechanic. Because, IN MY JUDGEMENT, THAT'S A CATCH!!!! I doubt there will ever be IR on any fields I work, so this is a pretty moot point.

[Thunderheads]

I would be remiss not to point out that this thread title seems to have been authored by a whiny pubescent girl.

"And another" and the comment about losing one's faith seems to mimic a rat quantifying missed calls.

They didn't 'say it wasn't controlled' they ruled as such.

A more suitable title may be "another non-catch, ruled as such" or "professionals get the call right" or even "how to interpret secure possession MLB".

Peace

Pot, ... meet Kettle

 

Your responses lately have clearly shown that you don't read what's going on around here.

"losing faith" simply infers to what we all used to understand as a catch (even ruled so on the MLB level a year prior) is now NOT being ruled so, and AT THE TIME THE THREAD WAS STARTED as @grayhawk pointed out (thank you sir) ...we had NOT seen the new rule interpretation from MLB/Hunter.  Obviously you didn't see that, didn't choose to read it, or maybe misunderstood it.

 

Balkhawk, ...personal attacks aren't tolerated, period.  And, I'm not sure why you're choosing to do so unprovoked.  This is the second thread in which you've done so.  Now, ... throwing around personal attacks unprovoked on an internet forum ...and YOU'RE CALLING ME the pubescent girl?

 

Again, pot, ...meet kettle