Jump to content

Austin Regional Thread


Horny Bull

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, GotThatFire said:

 Motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate motivate  motivate motivate motivate motivate 

Drives me insane. Can't hit the mute button fast enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goo Punch said:

 


I don’t believe he impeded the throw. Not even a little bit.

 

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

Fair enough, that’s a good analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

think of it like this, because i know you know soccer. think of an offside call against a player who never touches the ball on a goal. the ref and linesmen are in the unfortunate position to determine whether or not intent even matters. you can't have a guy charging at the goalkeeper even if he isn't part of the play. sometimes they have to call that, even if it might not be certain that bad intent is in play, just to send the message that little games like that aren't to be played. at that point, intent doesn't matter, the position after the swing does. even if you duck under the throw, you're still in front of the catcher. just putting the kabosh on any tomfoolery is a strong ump move, imo. i think it was a questionable call, but good umping, if that makes sense.

Not to mention the rule specifically dismisses "intent" as having any bearing on the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...