I think if Cal or Arizona had won a Pac12 tournament, it just woulda knocked Washington out of the tournament due to the RPI issues. Hard for me to see how it addresses the issue of perception that I think exists.
FSU will almost always be over-seeded. The Pac12 will be limited to 3-4 berths. Just the way its been for a while now.
TD,
If Cal or AZ won it's possible, depending on the conference RPI. And how many auto bids they have to give out overall.
It's not always a best scenario situation. The results this year were surprising but I think when big conference teams battle it out in their tournaments it hurts down the road. I think both Clemson and FSU pooped out the week before regionals. So did South Carolina
FSU got a higher seeded regional over Clemson because they won the ACC title. Clemson got screwed.
Couple of teams got the shaft, but overall it all comes out in the wash. It's a tough road to Omaha, and you can't make it unless you havec enough consistant arms.
Game 1 tonight @ 7pm EDT. I got Arkansas.
The weather forecast I just checked has it clear at 9pm eastern.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/base...lehold-college-world
This surprised me: "They’ve played four NCAA tournament games against the SEC — two against LSU and two here against Mississippi State — and gone 4-0. Not a soft 4-0, either. Combined score of those games: 43-4."
Postponed!
Thoughts on Mississippi State not hiring Henderson? I would love to know what the players thought. He stepped in and led them through a tough year.
Word is out he really didnt want the job in the first place. All recruiting responsibilities and final word is on the HC.
2019Dad posted:https://www.ncaa.com/news/base...lehold-college-world
This surprised me: "They’ve played four NCAA tournament games against the SEC — two against LSU and two here against Mississippi State — and gone 4-0. Not a soft 4-0, either. Combined score of those games: 43-4."
LSU and MSU are not dominant this year. They are good but not great. MSU has won two of the playoff games with walk-offs, maybe both were even elimination games. Had MSU not had a good weekend series against Florida, they may have not even made the SEC Tournament nor the NCAA playoffs. Saying all that, the SEC is deep and has many good teams. Florida was playing well early in the year but severely tailed off later in the season. Arkansas is a very good team, offensively and pitching wise. Many of the SEC teams had to play in the same Regional and Super Regional brackets.
You will see the post earlier that I picked Arkansas to win their side of the bracket and I picked OSU to win the other side and that is even after OSU lost their first game. I hope the Razorbacks win but I pick OSU to take it all. I hope that I'm wrong.
S.P.S.!!!!!
Skies are clear... let’s play some baseball finally!!!
PitchingFan posted:Thoughts on Mississippi State not hiring Henderson? I would love to know what the players thought. He stepped in and led them through a tough year.
TPM posted:Word is out he really didnt want the job in the first place. All recruiting responsibilities and final word is on the HC.
I was shocked it was not offered to Henderson and then shocked again with TPMs post that he didn't want it. So, the question needs to be asked where is he going next, and what is he going to do. He is too good of a coach. There is something else going on here that is not public yet...just a feeling.
After remaining silent for weeks about the prospects of having the "interim" tag dropped from his title, MSU interim head coach Gary Henderson made his case for taking over the job permanently when asked directly about it at the post-game press conference.
"I'm just really optimistic," Henderson said. "That's coach (John) Cohen's decision. He'll do a good job with it. We're kind of in, you know? And we'd like to stay there."
"I love this assistant coach staff that we have," he said. "We have started something special. The fans are in, and we'd like to stay and make a run of it."
Henderson wasn't the only one pushing his ascension, either. When it came time for Oregon State coach Pat Casey — a friend of Henderson's — to speak, he immediately mentioned Henderson and credited him with the Bulldogs' success.
"What a tremendous club they have," Casey said. "Gary Henderson — the job he's done at Mississippi State is second to none, and that's pretty impressive. And my hat's off to him and the whole deal. It's a tough day when you lose at Omaha, but it only takes a day or two for everybody to realize how special it was to get here."
Cohen could have handed the keys to the program to the man who just orchestrated State’s improbable run in 2018 as interim head coach – his good friend Gary Henderson. Instead, Cohen opted for Lemonis.
“When I was charged with moving our program forward, I couldn’t allow personal feelings, friendship or anything to interfere with moving this program forward for the next 10 years,” Cohen said. “That’s what I was committed to doing.”
Cohen did note that Henderson will have the opportunity to remain at MSU in some capacity should he choose to do so, and if not, Cohen will support that decision as well.
“Gary Henderson is not going to be kicked to the curb,” Cohen said. “Gary Henderson is going to be a part of Mississippi State as long as he chooses to be. Certainly if he chooses to be a head coach or an assistant coach anywhere, I’m going to help him as I’ve always done.”
Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
Smitty28 posted:PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
The rule is you must slide directly into the bag if there is a play. The rule was interpreted and applied correctly by the umpire, IMO. Not sure I agree with the rule, but it is what it is. Same rule cost us (LSU) a run and who knows what may have happened last year against UF.
The runner should have slid. The umpire was watching the mif and when he saw the hesitation to throw he assumed it was because the runner didn't get down. In reality I think he hesitated because no one covered the bag. If he slides there is no call to be made. Yes he was farther from the bag than normal but that situation happens when balls are hit hard and or runners are not very fast. Get down and there is no reason to call anything.
Smitty28 posted:PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
Rule 8-4a states that:
On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended. Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides orruns in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The explanation given by the fu was "he went directly at the fielder." This is, clearly the correct call. He doesn't have to slide and can peel away as long as it is "in a direction away from the fielder." Since he did not slide directly into the base, it is interference, by rule, unless he meets one of the two exceptions. He did not slide "in a direction away from the fielder" and did not run "in a direction away from the fielder." In fact, he peeled of in a direction toward the fielder. Peeling off in any direction that is not "away from the fielder" is, therefore, interference per se.
The call was correct and it was correct for exactly the reason the ump gave in his conversation with Casey and not, as the ESPN crew would have you believe, the right call for the wrong reasons.
Bad brain fart by the runner, one of many, many, unforced errors by OSU in the CWS. I wonder if he thought the ball was going to get through? Because otherwise, he needs to be anticipating a throw to 1st and getting ready to slide. As the announcers kept saying the play really did change the complexion of the game, but that's on Rutschman, not the umpire.
roothog66 posted:Smitty28 posted:PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
Rule 8-4a states that:
On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended. Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides orruns in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The explanation given by the fu was "he went directly at the fielder." This is, clearly the correct call. He doesn't have to slide and can peel away as long as it is "in a direction away from the fielder." Since he did not slide directly into the base, it is interference, by rule, unless he meets one of the two exceptions. He did not slide "in a direction away from the fielder" and did not run "in a direction away from the fielder." In fact, he peeled of in a direction toward the fielder. Peeling off in any direction that is not "away from the fielder" is, therefore, interference per se.
The call was correct and it was correct for exactly the reason the ump gave in his conversation with Casey and not, as the ESPN crew would have you believe, the right call for the wrong reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but I think when a rule impacts the game more than the play does, it's a bad rule.
Smitty28 posted:roothog66 posted:Smitty28 posted:PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
Rule 8-4a states that:
On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended. Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides orruns in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The explanation given by the fu was "he went directly at the fielder." This is, clearly the correct call. He doesn't have to slide and can peel away as long as it is "in a direction away from the fielder." Since he did not slide directly into the base, it is interference, by rule, unless he meets one of the two exceptions. He did not slide "in a direction away from the fielder" and did not run "in a direction away from the fielder." In fact, he peeled of in a direction toward the fielder. Peeling off in any direction that is not "away from the fielder" is, therefore, interference per se.
The call was correct and it was correct for exactly the reason the ump gave in his conversation with Casey and not, as the ESPN crew would have you believe, the right call for the wrong reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but I think when a rule impacts the game more than the play does, it's a bad rule.
While, maybe in this case, it didn't work out exactly like a sense of fairness might dictate, the idea of writing a rule in this manner is to try to do just the opposite - make it as clear and fair as possible. This takes away an umpire having to decide whether it affected the play or whether there was intent shown by the runner. It simply says "you must either slide directly at the base (which is also defined) or one of these two things (slide in a direction away from the fielder or run in a direction away from the fielder) or it is, by defined rule, interference." In the bigger picture this is much fairer than a rule which requires an ump to make judgments on what a player was thinking and predict the outcome of a play absent the act.
The bottom line is it is a rule. It's in black and white for every player or coach to read and understand. In this case, a player who knew the rule would have slid directly toward the base or taken advantage of one of the exceptions by sliding "in a direction away from the fielder" or peeling off "in a direction away from the fielde." He didn't know the rule, but ignorance of the rule cannot be used as an excuse for not following it. Maybe it didn't affect the play, but the beauty of having a rule written this way is that everyone should know what you have to do as a runner and there doesn't have to be multiple layers of decision making.
The penalty (double play and runner goes back to third) wasn't imposed because he interfered with the play; it was imposed, by rule, because he violated a written rule of the game which calls for specific actions and imposes specific penalties.
roothog66 posted:Smitty28 posted:roothog66 posted:Smitty28 posted:PitchingFan posted:Great job last night by Arkansas. Thoughts on interference call? I think it was a good call but I'm sure others will disagree.
I don't know what the rule is but there was definitely no interference and the runner stopping and ducking in no way affected the play, so in this sense I think it was either a horrible call or its a horrible rule. I'm fine with calling him out if his action affected the play, but that was ridiculous.
Rule 8-4a states that:
On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended. Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides orruns in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The explanation given by the fu was "he went directly at the fielder." This is, clearly the correct call. He doesn't have to slide and can peel away as long as it is "in a direction away from the fielder." Since he did not slide directly into the base, it is interference, by rule, unless he meets one of the two exceptions. He did not slide "in a direction away from the fielder" and did not run "in a direction away from the fielder." In fact, he peeled of in a direction toward the fielder. Peeling off in any direction that is not "away from the fielder" is, therefore, interference per se.
The call was correct and it was correct for exactly the reason the ump gave in his conversation with Casey and not, as the ESPN crew would have you believe, the right call for the wrong reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but I think when a rule impacts the game more than the play does, it's a bad rule.
While, maybe in this case, it didn't work out exactly like a sense of fairness might dictate, the idea of writing a rule in this manner is to try to do just the opposite - make it as clear and fair as possible. This takes away an umpire having to decide whether it affected the play or whether there was intent shown by the runner. It simply says "you must either slide directly at the base (which is also defined) or one of these two things (slide in a direction away from the fielder or run in a direction away from the fielder) or it is, by defined rule, interference." In the bigger picture this is much fairer than a rule which requires an ump to make judgments on what a player was thinking and predict the outcome of a play absent the act.
The bottom line is it is a rule. It's in black and white for every player or coach to read and understand. In this case, a player who knew the rule would have slid directly toward the base or taken advantage of one of the exceptions by sliding "in a direction away from the fielder" or peeling off "in a direction away from the fielde." He didn't know the rule, but ignorance of the rule cannot be used as an excuse for not following it. Maybe it didn't affect the play, but the beauty of having a rule written this way is that everyone should know what you have to do as a runner and there doesn't have to be multiple layers of decision making.
The penalty (double play and runner goes back to third) wasn't imposed because he interfered with the play; it was imposed, by rule, because he violated a written rule of the game which calls for specific actions and imposes specific penalties.
I'll give you a good analogy - the rule that if a batted ball contacts a base runner before passing a fielder, the runner is out and the ball is dead. Now, there are plenty of cases where this occurs and it obviously didn't affect the play and the fielder had no shot at making a play. However, we all know that rule and don't questions its fairness when it is called. We don't argue that it didn't affect the play and therefore the offensive team got screwed. We don't argue that the runner tried to get out of the way, so it shouldn't have been called. We just accept it.
The call was correct. The rule is bad. Had the runner slid he wouldn’t have reached the base. He tried to get out of the way. The (correct) call changed the momentum of the game. OSU would have been up 2-0, runners on first and third, one out. It’s up to the coaching staff and the players to know the rules.
RJM posted:The call was correct. The rule is bad. Had the runner slid he wouldn’t have reached the base. He tried to get out of the way. The (correct) call changed the momentum of the game. OSU would have been up 2-0, runners on first and third, one out. It’s up to the coaching staff and the players to know the rules.
and should be up the NCAA to write good rules....wait oh never mind we are relying on the NCAA - better off just betting it all on red.
RJM posted:The call was correct. The rule is bad. Had the runner slid he wouldn’t have reached the base. He tried to get out of the way. The (correct) call changed the momentum of the game. OSU would have been up 2-0, runners on first and third, one out. It’s up to the coaching staff and the players to know the rules.
The rule is fine. It requires you to run "in a direction away from the fielder." He did not. He ran right at the fielder. The rule is fine. he just didn't follow it. The rule allows only one way to "get out of the way" - run in a direction away from the runner. I like the rule. It leaves no leeway for argument. You either follow it or you don't. Otherwise, the argument you'd be having would concern an umpire's mind reading abilities or the runner's intent. If he knew the rule and did as it required, there would have been zero problem. He didn't, so his team pays. Nothing unfair about that.
Here is why I prefer it to the OBR rule, as an example.
Here is the rule again:
"On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended. Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides orruns in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called."
So the umpire factors it like this?
1) Did the runner slide directly to the base? If yes, NO interference. If No, ask:
2) Did the runner take either of the actions that except him from the rule to slide directly into the base: either slide in a "direction away from the runner" or run "in a direction away from the runner?" If yes, NO interference; if No, Interference is called and the penalties issued by rule.
absolutely unambiguous and objective. The answers to these questions are fact based and require absolutely no speculation.
OBR:
"If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner;"
So now the umpire has to decide:
1) Did he interfere?
2) was it "willful and deliberate" or just an accident?
3) was the intent "obvious?"
Pretty subjective stuff, here. These questions require speculation if not outright mind reading abilities.
Totally agree. Look it's either get down or veer out of the way. There is no middle ground where you freeze up and duck at the last second. Not knowing the rules or failing to follow them is not on the umpire it's on the player here. The rule is fine. I guess you could say "If no one covers the bag and no out at first could have been made anyway and its a big game and will change the momentum of the game the rule will not be enforced." Just get down or veer out of the way when it's clear you can't challenge at the bag. The kid screwed up not the umpires. The rule itself is a non issue here. Unless your a commentator for ESPN and then it never ends and cost OSU the game.
For complete transparency: Lifelong Razorback fan, in case the user name didn't give it away.
As a Beaver fan I didn't like the rule, but acknowledge its a clear rule and the kid messed up. Nobody's fault but his. A lesser play that I do blame the umpire on is the calling of the ball foul on the line drive to right field with a runner on first. By calling it foul (which was proven to be wrong) it then presented the issue of having to guess where everyone would have ended up had the umpire ruled it correctly. Had he called it fair, then the play would have happened and I am sure Arkansas would have appealed it. But in that situation, the play would have happened and if it were reviewed to be foul there would have been no guessing where to reset the runners. Would it have changed the game? Who knows. I just know that the way it was handled CREATED guesswork. That being said, I enjoy watching these two battle each other. Both are fantastic teams.
latebloomer21 posted:As a Beaver fan I didn't like the rule, but acknowledge its a clear rule and the kid messed up. Nobody's fault but his. A lesser play that I do blame the umpire on is the calling of the ball foul on the line drive to right field with a runner on first. By calling it foul (which was proven to be wrong) it then presented the issue of having to guess where everyone would have ended up had the umpire ruled it correctly. Had he called it fair, then the play would have happened and I am sure Arkansas would have appealed it. But in that situation, the play would have happened and if it were reviewed to be foul there would have been no guessing where to reset the runners. Would it have changed the game? Who knows. I just know that the way it was handled CREATED guesswork. That being said, I enjoy watching these two battle each other. Both are fantastic teams.
I was a little surprised it was overturned. It didn't seem that clear. If I was just watching the slow-mo replay, I would have guessed it was fair after looking at a slow motion replay, but wouldn't have felt entirely comfortable that I was correct. In real time, though, I thought it was the right call. Either way, I think the placement ended up being correct. That ball took a very favorable bounce off the wall for the Razorbacks and I couldn't see them sending the runner to second.
Roothog, it was definitely a close play. I could definitely see them sending the batter to second though. Similar ball bounced off of the short wall in foul territory in left and they sent the runner (he was thrown out), but the left fielder was charging the ball in a path that was directly on line to second base. Whereas the play in right the right fielder was moving away from second base so it would have been a tougher play. It doesn't matter now of course. But that is the reason for wishing it would have played out. No guesswork. Anyway, don't want to sound like a whiner. There is no crying in baseball. 
Is it game time yet?
Two more hours!
Coach May:
When a pitcher does not cover 1b on ground balls to the right side. What is the reason, lack of drills? when a player does not slide is it a "fear" of injury? The basics maybe missing.
Bob
Question for y'all. Where did they come up with that ugly looking A? Also their chant is driving me nuts.
Ouch to that pop up bunt DP...
TPM posted:Question for y'all. Where did they come up with that ugly looking A? Also their chant is driving me nuts.
Found answer. The old English A was a rebrand collaboration for baseball and softball with Nike.
Ugly
They blew it. If I was Dave Van Horn, I wouldn't be happy!
TPM posted:TPM posted:Question for y'all. Where did they come up with that ugly looking A? Also their chant is driving me nuts.
Found answer. The old English A was a rebrand collaboration for baseball and softball with Nike.
Ugly
That’s been the Arkansas A since I’ve been alive.
I’m old.
d-mac posted:TPM posted:TPM posted:Question for y'all. Where did they come up with that ugly looking A? Also their chant is driving me nuts.
Found answer. The old English A was a rebrand collaboration for baseball and softball with Nike.
Ugly
That’s been the Arkansas A since I’ve been alive.
I’m old.
Really? Maybe because it's only baseball and softball. Not too familiar with Arkansas other than the hog
Consultant posted:Coach May:
When a pitcher does not cover 1b on ground balls to the right side. What is the reason, lack of drills? when a player does not slide is it a "fear" of injury? The basics maybe missing.
Bob
I think it's mostly due to lack of focus which in turn could be lack of drills? As far as the base running situation I think what happened is he was so far from 2nd base he knew there was no reason to slide. He was not trying to obstruct he was really trying to avoid it but he basically froze up. I bet he will learn the ole veer off abruptly move going forward.
