As you can imagine, the Razorbacks weren’t happy about the way the bottom of the ninth inning played out: http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2019 … ansas-9th/
It’s such a stupid rule because it wasn’t close to being a strike so you can’t Count as Strike if nothing else it’s a dead ball or should be
If you look at the angle they show for check swings, you can clearly see he was pulling away from the pitch.
From the pitcher’s mound, in slow motion you can tell he was pulling away from the pitch.
Don’t mean Hog’s would have won the game, but it took away Martin’s at bat with a man on.
I agree. I don’t know why they changed that rule. If the ump thinks the player turned into the pitch, the old penalty was plenty: don’t award the base. It appeared to me Goodheart was just turning away even if the turn moved his arm slightly further into the ball’s path. Terrible call. Might have made a difference, might not, but still a bad call & bad rule.
Nesbit was batting and called out on the HBP. It should count as a ball not a strike.
Bad rule and stupid.
This will be unpopular here, but i thought that - under the current rules - it was a good call. I called it (the “foul” on him, and strike 3) in real time. Obviously, I didn’t WANT him to be out, but from the angles I saw, I absolutely understand that it LOOKED like he stuck his arm into the path of the pitch.
I listened to what DVH said and I don’t disagree with him. The bottom line is that the coaches, players and umpires now have a rule that none of them like. But from where I sat (viewing perspective), the batter might have been hit anyway had he frozen - 50/50 IMO. However, as the ball approached the plate, he rotated his back toward the pitcher and also his upper body moved toward the plate 2-3 inches. Obviously, that moved his left elbow closer to the path of the pitch, which then hit it.
My baseball watching buddy, who has been into baseball longer than I have, at first disagreed when I said he would be called out (based on the new rule). But after watching a couple of replays, he changed his mind and agreed it was the right call. And he’s a life-long Arkie just like I am. Neither of us wanted the call to go against the Razorbacks - but we call 'em like we see them.
I blame the rule, not the umpire or the kid. Tough break.
Let’s get ahead by 7 runs early so we don’t have to worry about it today.
No doubt he stuck his elbow out there that was very obvious to me but it’s still a stupid rule because the ball was not a strike. You can’t call it a strike out because of that. How a bunch of people came around to that conclusion of what it should be is beyond me.
This is about as stupid as the freedom of movement in basketball!
The key to the whole thing is that the rules makers do not understand that a batter is going to protect his front, and expose his back. You do not want a ball to hit you in the sternum (or in the groin area). So you are going to turn your back to the pitch. Every player in baseball will do that. This rule is so bad because it does not acknowledge that you are going to protect your heart. If a breaking ball is coming at your chest, you rotate to make sure it hits in the shoulder area, and not the chest. The baseball rules makers should not punish a player for doing that. No way is a player going to roll back away from the pitch and get hit in the chest. Never. Bad rule. Was the interpretation right? Maybe. But it’s a bad rule.
Absolutely, positively, 100% CORRECT call
Absolutely, positively, 100% BAD RULE!..
Ben McDonald called it immediately as well and said it was not the 1st time the rule has been enforced in SEC games they have called…said it had been enforced several times…
It appeared obvious Nesbit was trying to draw the leadoff HBP.
ONE more thought on the RULE. It actually was not fully enforced. The rule states that the call can NOT be questioned (just like balls & strikes). With that in mind, we were blessed/fortunate that both DVH and Nesbit were not ejected…
Dave didn’t really question it. He came out of the dugout and the umpire told him they would review it. All he said was, “You’ve gotta take a look at that.”
I’ve watched it several times now. I can see why someone would say he moved into the pitch, but I can also see why someone would say he was simply turning his back to avoid getting hit in a more vulnerable spot. Had he not moved at all, it still appears to me the ball would have struck him. That’s another problem with the rule. If the movement is ambiguous, it shouldn’t be assumed the batter tried to get hit–at least not so that it’s called a strike rather than a ball. I don’t know how fast the ball was traveling, but even at 80 mph that’s 120 ft per second. It only took half a second from the time it left the pitcher’s hand until it plunked him. That doesn’t leave much time to move at all. It’s much more likely to be reflexive rather than conscious movement.