Started By
Message
Oregon ejection
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:01 pm
Baserunner gets ejected for excessive contact at the plate, but the catcher was blocking the plate. Total BS..
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:02 pm to Jimmy Bags
Didn’t know you were an Oregon fan. Screw the ducks!
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:05 pm to Jimmy Bags
Absolutely terrible!!! Screw Oregon but almost pulling for them now
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:06 pm to Jimmy Bags
Im wondering how they called that, especially since Oregon is home.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:08 pm to Jimmy Bags
Oregon blocked the plate to end the top of the 8th. Reviewed and no obstruction.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:10 pm to PrairievilleTiger
I’m more a fan of the truth loser
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:18 pm to Jimmy Bags
Runner made no attempt at all to slide or avoid the catcher. Haven't been able to do that in what feels like a decade.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:21 pm to Eternalmajin
Catcher had his legs spread, completely blocking the plate without the ball.
I’m not an Oregon fan but that was a horseshite call.
Glad they lost though.
I’m not an Oregon fan but that was a horseshite call.
Glad they lost though.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:23 pm to NFLSU
While it was obstruction, malicious contact supersedes that.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:29 pm to Eternalmajin
quote:
Runner made no attempt at all to slide
Yes he did. It was a fricked up attempt because the catcher was standing a foot in front of home
quote:catcher was completely blocking the base path. There was no avoiding him without leaving the path or coming to a complete stop.
or avoid the catcher
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:31 pm to Jimmy Bags
I’m pulling for Utah Vaey, but that’s BS
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:44 pm to AlextheBodacious
quote:
catcher was completely blocking the base path. There was no avoiding him without leaving the path or coming to a complete stop.
And if he leaves the path or stops due to the presence of a defender without possession, OBS would be called. But they ruled malicious contact, which supersedes an OBS call.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:46 pm to Volsfan82169
quote:
While it was obstruction, malicious contact supersedes that.
Just bring back running over the catcher. No one understands the blocking the plate rule anyways.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:46 pm to Volsfan82169
quote:
And if he leaves the path or stops due to the presence of a defender without possession, OBS would be called. But they ruled malicious contact, which supersedes an OBS call.
It wasn’t malicious contact. He started a slide and was blocked by the catcher.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:58 pm to Jimmy Bags
since no one, including the OP, wants to link the video...
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 12:10 am to Jimmy Bags
The home plate ump called the runner safe before touched home plate.
So it is almost like he ruled that the catcher was blocking the plate before the review.
So it is almost like he ruled that the catcher was blocking the plate before the review.
Posted on 5/31/25 at 12:10 am to finchmeister08
I can’t believe the 10 minute review resulted in what it did. Oregon got straight hosed
Posted on 5/31/25 at 12:10 am to finchmeister08
Frick off they didn’t have it available yet
Posted on 5/31/25 at 12:11 am to WylieTiger
One play has nothing to do with the other
Back to top
