I'm a bit confused about the Estes thing

[Liter22]

Ok let me get this right Estes has to pay for ALMOST hitting the coward ( you all know who I'm ta;lking about). THis makes nnnooo sence to me:confused: Roger hits Bonds and before the game says he will hit Bonds but no fine for him:confused: This may sound like the moaning and groaning from another ticked off Mets fan but If anyone can clear this up for me than pl;ease feel free to:biggrin:

[rockin500]

simple. The pitch of Clemens was less than 6 inches off the plate. and could have been legitimately called a strike, even if it did strike Bonds. The umpire has that right to call it a strike if he is in the strike zone.

Estes on the other hand was 2-3 feet (at least) off the plate and behind clemens. That was a purpose pitch and could in no way be mistaken for a strike (unless the ump really was blind). Since it was in no way a strike and there was intent to throw at clemens so hence the fine.

pretty simple I think. :) That clear it up?

[sheffield_rocks]

:crying2: He shouldn't have gotten fined. :thumbsup: because they have no proof that he did that on purpose. People do throw wild pitches :rotflmao: :biggrin: :biggrinpa :beer: :popcorn: :pepsi:
:dancin: :clap1: :dance2: :wavey:

[milky_way]

they shoulda both been fined. If Roger didn't (like a dummy) say that he was gonna introduce himself to Bond's armor then it would be a totally different story. Roger's pitch wasn't that far from being a strike, so based on the pitch alone, he shouldn't be fined. it's the comments before the game and the resulting bean during the game that shoulda got him fined.

Estes should also be fined. the pitch was (unlike Roger's) not even close to being a strike. and with all the hoopla that surrounded the game, and the pitch nearly hitting Clemens, he got fined, which was IMO, the right thing to do.

that's JMO though :)

[GiveHyzduashot]

How in the world could any pitch that hits a batter legitamately be called a strike?? That could NEVER happen.

What Bonds did was NOT illegal. He was not hanging over the plate, he was right on the plate. That is 100% legal.

[milky_way]

Originally posted by GiveHyzduashot
How in the world could any pitch that hits a batter legitamately be called a strike?? That could NEVER happen.

it wasn't a strike, but it was close. the pitch was up and in, and it sure looked to me that Bonds was hanging over the plate.

[GiveHyzduashot]

I was talking about rockin's comment "and could have been legitimately called a strike, even if it did strike Bonds".

Whether or not Bonds was hanging over the plate doesn't matter for that pitch. Where Clemens threw at Bonds, would have been a ball if Bonds was or wasn't out over the plate.

[rockin500]

If an umpire feels the batter did not try to avoid a pitch he can call it a strike (or just a ball if its out of the zone). Its been done in the past, but not for a long long time. The pitch was close enough to the zone that it could be a strike (especially for pitchers like maddux or glavine or someone who gets the corners of the plate calls)

[GiveHyzduashot]

I don't think that's the rule, rockin. I think the rule is an umpire can say the batter doesn't get first base. I don't think he's allowed to say "Sorry, that's a strike". I doubt if that's the way it happens.

[Liter22]

Originally posted by GiveHyzduashot
I don't think that's the rule, rockin. I think the rule is an umpire can say the batter doesn't get first base. I don't think he's allowed to say "Sorry, that's a strike". I doubt if that's the way it happens.

Thats a rule. If an Ump feels that the ball hit the batter in the k zone then the Ump is able to give a strike or call the batter out unless if he swings of course and fouls it off. The thing about that rule is that it's like seeing Randy Johnson hit the bird it might only happen once :hmm:

[GiveHyzduashot]

Right Vin, but this wasn't in the strike zone. And what my impression of with Rockin's post is the ball was out of the strike zone, yet rockin still said an umpire could call that a strike ... which he couldn't. The ball wasn't close enough to call a strike.

As you said, you very rarely see it. I've never seen anyone be hit in the strike zone. They've all been out of the zone.

[imgreat95]

actually josh, that is the rule. If a part of the hitter is in the strike zone, and a pitcher throws that pitch in the strike zone, then it is a strike.. wether it hits the batter or not.

[Tigers#1]

Originally posted by imgreat95
actually josh, that is the rule. If a part of the hitter is in the strike zone, and a pitcher throws that pitch in the strike zone, then it is a strike.. wether it hits the batter or not. That's suppost to be the rule, but how many times do umps call it a strike?:hmm: They need to inforce that rule better.

[rockin500]

If bonds had been anymore off the plate it might have been called a strike. That was damned close and ive seen further pitches off the plate called a strike.