EagleOutsider.com

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
'
This one was my favorite.

Yes because it's impossible to see interference unless one is looking at the exact moment that Craig is grabbing Middlebrooks cheeks and there aren't other officials who can see it or over rule a call made by that guy there. Time to put your tear-soaked bib in the wash.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
'
This one was my favorite.

Yes because it's impossible to see interference unless one is looking at the exact moment that Craig is grabbing Middlebrooks cheeks and there aren't other officials who can see it or over rule a call made by that guy there. Time to put your tear-soaked bib in the wash.

True, when he turned around, all he could see was Craig directly on the chalk. I know, because that's what he said he saw.

Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
'
This one was my favorite.

Yes because it's impossible to see interference unless one is looking at the exact moment that Craig is grabbing Middlebrooks cheeks and there aren't other officials who can see it or over rule a call made by that guy there. Time to put your tear-soaked bib in the wash.

True, when he turned around, all he could see was Craig directly on the chalk. I know, because that's what he said he saw.

you'll have to show me where because I haven't been pouring over the grainy footage of the grassy knoll.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

I know he looked and I know he thinks he had to call it. My problem is that he had to make shit up to justify what he thinks he was forced to call because even he knows it is an idiotic outcome. So he pretends Craig didn't push Middlebrooks to get up and he pretends Craig was remotely near the wide-open baseline (given that Middlebrooks dove off of the bag towards second base to try to catch the ball).

Again, if you want to argue that the awful language of the rules interpretation makes that a proper call, fine. But it is an absurd rule that shouldn't be called in that situation. And that is further illustrated by Joyce's need to invent what happened to make it look like it wasn't a silly call.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

on top of that, teddy seems to believe peripheral vision is not common amongst humans.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

on top of that, teddy seems to believe peripheral vision is not common amongst humans.

I think all of the justifying of a ridiculous interpretation of an idiotic rule to be amusing, including the inventing of things that occurred, like Craig being in the baseline.

can someone please cardinals this up?



this is the best i can do in the meantime

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

on top of that, teddy seems to believe peripheral vision is not common amongst humans.

I think all of the justifying of a ridiculous interpretation of an idiotic rule to be amusing, including the inventing of things that occurred, like Craig being in the baseline.

what's funnier is those that believe the base line is only directly on top of the chalk. many runners that slide into a bag end up gettting up on that side of the bag. in both pictures craig is in very close range (less than 1.5 feet by my esitamtion) of the bag. if you think he is out of the base line every runner who rounds a base at top speed should be out.

where was the invention of things? you yourself said the existing rule was applied correctly. shitty wording and whether the rule should exist are out of the scope here.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

I know he looked and I know he thinks he had to call it. My problem is that he had to make shit up to justify what he thinks he was forced to call because even he knows it is an idiotic outcome. So he pretends Craig didn't push Middlebrooks to get up and he pretends Craig was remotely near the wide-open baseline (given that Middlebrooks dove off of the bag towards second base to try to catch the ball).

Again, if you want to argue that the awful language of the rules interpretation makes that a proper call, fine. But it is an absurd rule that shouldn't be called in that situation. And that is further illustrated by Joyce's need to invent what happened to make it look like it wasn't a silly call.

I agree. It's still a rule though and no amount of butthurt is going to change that.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

on top of that, teddy seems to believe peripheral vision is not common amongst humans.

I think all of the justifying of a ridiculous interpretation of an idiotic rule to be amusing, including the inventing of things that occurred, like Craig being in the baseline.

what's funnier is those that believe the base line is only directly on top of the chalk. many runners that slide into a bag end up gettting up on that side of the bag. in both pictures craig is in very close range (less than 1.5 feet by my esitamtion) of the bag. if you think he is out of the base line every runner who rounds a base at top speed should be out.

where was the invention of things? you yourself said the existing rule was applied correctly. shitty wording and whether the rule should exist are out of the scope here.

The ump was quoted as saying that he was "directly on the chalk". That is a complete fabrication designed to give what he knew was a crappy application of a rule he felt compelled to enforce a sense of credibility.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

I know he looked and I know he thinks he had to call it. My problem is that he had to make shit up to justify what he thinks he was forced to call because even he knows it is an idiotic outcome. So he pretends Craig didn't push Middlebrooks to get up and he pretends Craig was remotely near the wide-open baseline (given that Middlebrooks dove off of the bag towards second base to try to catch the ball).

Again, if you want to argue that the awful language of the rules interpretation makes that a proper call, fine. But it is an absurd rule that shouldn't be called in that situation. And that is further illustrated by Joyce's need to invent what happened to make it look like it wasn't a silly call.

I agree. It's still a rule though and no amount of butthurt is going to change that.

True, and they never should have thrown the ball and they probably don't win anyway. It's still a dumb outcome to a game.

So is the Tuck Rule but you're starting to sound like MoJS and the rest of his Raider-folk kin.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:So is the Tuck Rule but you're starting to sound like MoJS and the rest of his Raider-folk kin.

The Tuck Rule sucked too.

Meh, I got over it fairly quickly.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Regardless of what he says he saw, he still interpreted the rule correctly. And if you watch the video of the play, you notice he glances over for a split second. Photographic evidence makes it look bad.

on top of that, teddy seems to believe peripheral vision is not common amongst humans.

I think all of the justifying of a ridiculous interpretation of an idiotic rule to be amusing, including the inventing of things that occurred, like Craig being in the baseline.

what's funnier is those that believe the base line is only directly on top of the chalk. many runners that slide into a bag end up gettting up on that side of the bag. in both pictures craig is in very close range (less than 1.5 feet by my esitamtion) of the bag. if you think he is out of the base line every runner who rounds a base at top speed should be out.

where was the invention of things? you yourself said the existing rule was applied correctly. shitty wording and whether the rule should exist are out of the scope here.

The ump was quoted as saying that he was "directly on the chalk". That is a complete fabrication designed to give what he knew was a crappy application of a rule he felt compelled to enforce a sense of credibility.

"He was right on the chalk" is the quote. I'm sorry you think that means he needs to be kicking up chalk as he runs and anything otherwise means the opinion is invalid. Running down the line inside the base path is still "right on the chalk" in all but your ultra-conservative and foil-hatted interpretation.

He wasn't anywhere near the chalk or the baseline when the obstruction occurred. Not that it mattered - according to that ultra liberal interpretation of the rule, it's still obstruction, but it just underscores how dumb everyone thinks that rule is that you need to come up with an excuse for it.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Meh, I got over it fairly quickly.

Yeah me too. Pretty much over this one too, since there is a lefty on the mound tonight and two games remaining at Fenway.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He wasn't anywhere near the chalk or the baseline when the obstruction occurred. Not that it mattered - according to that ultra liberal interpretation of the rule, it's still obstruction, but it just underscores how dumb everyone thinks that rule is that you need to come up with an excuse for it.

it's still funny how you are slighting the use of language to justify applying the rule but then trying to twist language for your own emotional benefit. Like how you claimed Joyce had to "turn around" even though everything happened just to the left of his gaze. I don't really have a horse in this race, so whatever.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

Did those two have issues or did they just love high-waisted pants?

I believe, much like tying yellow onions to belts and using bees for ferry rides, it was the style at the time.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:I believe, much like tying yellow onions to belts and using bees for ferry rides, it was the style at the time.

all because moose didn't have knuckles in those days

Their jerseys had zippers because the Kaiser stole all the buttons.

That strike 3 call to Carpenter looked to be inside.

couple hard hit balls that inning by the cards... holliday's HR, beltran to the wall, and drew's (great) leaping catch of the ball hit molina

WHY THE FUCK DID MATHENY NOT PINCH-HIT FOR KOZMA WHO CANT HIT FOR SHIT?

Kozma Kramer

Cards need to swap one of the five midgets in their lineup for a right handed stick with power. Just inept against lefties.

Has anyone checked hansen for a pulse?

I wouldn't have figured this one to bother him so much, given: (1) his team can't hit lefties, so last night was in the bag; (2) the lost opportunity was in Game 4 when they faced Buchholz going a mediocre 4 inning stretch; and (3) Wacha is still pitching Game 6, so you have to like the chances he keeps the Sox in striking distance.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Has anyone checked hansen for a pulse?

I wouldn't have figured this one to bother him so much, given: (1) his team can't hit lefties, so last night was in the bag; (2) the lost opportunity was in Game 4 when they faced Buchholz going a mediocre 4 inning stretch; and (3) Wacha is still pitching Game 6, so you have to like the chances he keeps the Sox in striking distance.

There isn't' that much left to be said that hasn't been said already.

I definitely like the pitching match-ups for the cards the next two games but with the next two at Fenway (where the redsox are really good at home) and the redsox leading 3-1, it will be a very tall (although not impossible) task for them to come back to win the series. a far more likely scenario is the cards winning game 6 and the redsox winning the decider in 7 which will be a punch to the balls.