Jump to content

4hzglory

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    3,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About 4hzglory

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 05/07/1974

Converted

  • Location
    Southern Michigan

Converted

  • Interests
    Wife and son, Kingdom, Pistons, Tigers, Lions

Converted

  • Occupation
    Small business

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is what I don't agree with. I don't know when bobbling the ball while landing out of bounds was considered a catch - maybe before the rule change you mentioned in 1982. Now under G2's proposal, the call on the field probably stands, which I'd be fine with, but with the current review, it definitely wasn't a catch IMO.
  2. I could get behind this as well.
  3. On this I was only talking about the rule pertaining to the KG play. I wasn't talking about the rule altogether. I'm only talking about KG's play. KG's wouldn't have been a catch after 1982 when I was 8. I didn't know the rules before 1982.
  4. I wasn't able to see the bobble in real time, that needed review, but seeing the review, I definitely think they made the right call. Again, I do think they should have a time limit to make their decision, and if they can't see it within the 60 seconds, the play on the field should stand.
  5. Again, on KG's play in the endzone, it was pretty clear to me it wasn't a catch when watching on replay. IMO the movement of the ball clearly indicated he didn't have securementl until he was on his backside which was out of bounds. I know we disagree on that and that is ok. To me that play is very straight-forward based when he had secured the ball - which has been the rule for as long as I can remember.
  6. I agree with all of this and still don't get the argument on KG's play in the endzone. To me it seemed clear they got the call right and I definitely didn't need a flow chart to figure it out, but Oh well, we won't agree on that one. I definitely think replay needs to be limited to the 60 second range or the call on the field stands.
  7. Definitely. But the only reason they took Bailey was to help the Reds which definitely helped the prospects they received in return.
  8. The most recent was this past offseason they took Bailey's contract in the trade with Kemp/Wood/Puig. If they don't take Bailey who they immediately released, they don't get the 2 prospects
  9. I'd say it's unlikely, but the odds are that the prospect (who was signed for much less than $9 mil) will never be worth the $9 mil in performance for the major league club. So basically it depends on how capped out their finances are and what moves they want/need the flexibility to make. Clubs "buy" prospects by paying down $ basically every trade deadline, so it definitely isn't out of the realm of possibilities. I'd say it's more likely we would have to take back 2 contracts (or Davis') to get one of their top 5 prospects, but the concept isn't unreasonable. The Dodgers have done it multiple times for example.
  10. Exactly. I would like to see a time limit on reviews, but would much rather have the right call be made than a poor call that everyone can see was wrong "Especially when fans is the stands have already watched multiple angles of the play". If it takes longer than 90 seconds or whatever time limit there is to be conclusive, the play on the field stands. But obvious mistakes should be corrected. I'd rather have more replays of obvious mistakes rather than have them decide a game.
  11. If we did this trade, you know it would have to include their number 7 prospect on MLB - Middle infielder Terrin Vavra, son of our new Hitting coach. (previous Quality control coach)
  12. If Golladay's rear end landed in bounds, it would have been a catch. Even if his knee hit in bounds after the ball stopped moving, but before another part of his body landed out of bounds it would have been a catch.
  13. There can be movement if they are in bounds. It is the boundary line that is the issue.
  14. I'm sorry, but how is it really that difficult based on the current rules? Whether in the field of play or not, possession isn't gained until it is controlled with 2 feet down (or other body parts). In bounds, that means no matter when the player controls it, it is for sure a catch if the ball doesn't hit the ground. The key is the control has to happen before that body part touches in bounds. Because Golladay was bobbling the ball, he didn't have control until he hit the ground. Since that was out of bounds, no catch. If there was no bobble after he first got both feet down, it would have been a catch.
  15. It's pretty simple actually, if it's tossed backwards or forwards - same rules as on a screen. If backwards, it is a lateral, if forwards (like the shovel passes), it is a pass.
×
×
  • Create New...