Benutzername:
Betreff:


Beitrag:
Sicherheitsabfrage*
Tippen Sie die Buchstaben hier ein:

 
*Zur Vermeidung von Spam
Datei anhängen

In Antwort auf

of play shall be assessed in • Absender: jinshuiqian0713, 18.11.2019 02:37

NEW YORK -- Rather than ban home plate collisions outright, Major League Baseball and its players adopted a rule limiting them this season. In what both sides said was a one-year experiment, the rule allows collisions if the catcher has the ball and is blocking the runners direct path to home plate, and if the catcher goes into the basepath to field a throw to the plate. "Its not a radical departure from what it had been," Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon said. The new rule, 7.13, states "a runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate)." A runner violating the rule shall be declared out, even if the fielder drops the ball. "Its good, I think it takes away the malicious intent behind the play at the plate," Texas Rangers catcher J.P. Arencibia said. "Obviously the runner doesnt always have to slide, and the catcher still has the ability to block the plate once he has the ball in hand." Along with the rule, the sides agreed to a pair of comments umpires use for interpretation. The first comment says "the failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runners lowering of the shoulder, or the runners pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation." The comment says players who slide appropriately are not in violation of the rule. The second comment says that "unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score." The runner shall be declared safe if the catcher violates that provision. In addition, it is not a violation "if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable." "There are some things that often times can make the water a little muddy," union head Tony Clark said after meeting with the New York Yankees. "Over the course of the off-season, the concern was protecting players, but trying to draw up something that not only made sense on paper, but also was going to make sense to the players that were playing on the field." The umpire crew chief can use the new video-review system to determine whether the rule was violated. "It stops guys just going out of their way just to try to dislodge the baseball when they (catchers) have the plate," Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington said. Debate over plate collisions has intensified since May 2011, when San Franciscos Buster Posey was injured as the Marlins Scott Cousins crashed into him at the plate. Posey, an All-Star catcher, sustained a broken bone in his lower left leg and three torn ligaments in his ankle, an injury that ended his season. In Game 5 of last years AL championship series, Detroit backstop Alex Avila was pulled a couple of innings after being run over at the plate by Bostons David Ross, a fellow catcher. "I think its fair. A runners path is to home plate," Oakland catcher Derek Norris said. "Any deviation and hes not trying to score, hes trying to harm. A runner going out of the basepath trying to break up a double play is declared out. This is the same concept as a double-play slide." Fake Athletics Jerseys . The injury could land Machado on the 15-day disabled list, but its not as serious as it looked on Monday night, when the third baseman crumpled in a heap at the plate after taking an awkward swing in a game against the New York Yankees. Oakland Athletics Gear . But that changed when he committed a five-minute major penalty and helped pave the way for a comeback by the Philadelphia Flyers. Vincent Lecavalier scored at 2:45 of overtime and the Flyers rallied from a two-goal deficit for a 5-4 victory on Sunday. https://www.cheapathleticsonline.com/.C. Lions signed cornerback Dante Marsh to a contract extension on Friay and released receiver Paris Jackson. Stitched Athletics Jerseys .com) - The fading Ottawa Senators have a chance to make up some ground in the playoff race on Tuesday night as they play host to the New York Rangers. Athletics Jerseys 2020 . The teams were scoreless for most of the first two periods before Canada scored three times in a span of less than four minutes. Sarah Potomak opened the scoring on the power play. Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hi Kerry, Im in the middle of watching the Oilers-Predators game Tuesday night where we saw a puck that entered the net called no goal by the ref behind the net. After over a minute of continued play which included an Oilers penalty, the play finally stopped and the refs were able to review the goal (it was a good goal). The broadcasters said that they would have to bring the play back to the moment in time when that goal happened, so I was surprised to see Mark Frasers penalty stand from the end of the play. My question is as follows: What would have happened if Nashville had scored a goal as well? They had some good sustained pressure after the Hall goal. They let the penalty at the end of the play stand, but would they have also let a Nashville goal stand? Thanks. Aaron Deblois,Edmonton Aaron, Once video review was instituted to determine the scoring of legitimate goals, including those that are undetected by the referee during the course of play, Rule 78.6 was included in the rule book to cover the situation that occurred in Tuesday nights Oilers-Predators game. Interestingly, I was called to rule upon the identical situation the first very time it occurred in an NHL game. Current executive VP and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell was behind the bench that night as coach of the NY Rangers for a game in Pittsburgh. The Rangers scored an undetected goal and play continued for another minute until I blew my whistle for a Ranger penalty. While assessing the penalty, a horn sounded to signify the play was placed under review by the video goal judge located in the Pittsburgh Arena. Video review confirmed that the puck had indeed entered the net for a Ranger goal. I instructed the timekeeper to re-set the clock to the time of the goal and place two minutes on the Rangers penalty clock. I explained the strange turn of events that resulted from this new rule application to Coach Campbell at the Rangers bench. While pleased with the award of a goal for his team, the coach was somewhat miffed that the penalty should stand given the difference inn game time that had occurred.dddddddddddd Nonetheless, Campbell trusted my knowledge of the rule and the Rangers killed off the minor penalty. This initial situation was handled "on-site" by the referee and the video goal judge. Currently all video decisions are made "off-site" in the Situation Room in Toronto under the direction of former coach, Colin Campbell who received some basic training that night in the Igloo. Aaron, I provide points from Rule 78.6 that address various scenarios and answer your specific question. • Any potential goal must be reviewed during the next stoppage of play. No review can take place after the puck has been dropped.• If an apparent goal is confirmed by video review, the clock is re-set to the time the goal was scored.• Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. Had Nashville subsequently scored to stop play after Taylor Halls undetected goal, the Preds goal would not stand.• If review determined that the undetected goal by Taylor Hall was scored illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal shall be disallowed and since the play should have stopped, no subsequent goal scored by either team can be awarded on the same play. The clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) must be re-set to the time of the disallowed goal by Hall.• Any penalties (Mark Fraser) signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal (scored by Hall) and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon (Nashville), and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal. If the penalty to be assessed (Nashville) was a double minor, one of the minors would be nullified with the scoring of the goal.• *If an infraction happens after the first stoppage of play following an apparent goal (i.e. infraction committed by Mark Fraser or a Preds player occurred after the whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal Judge. Whenever this unusual play occurs in a game, Rule 78.6 provides the necessary check-list for the referee and video review to follow. ' ' '


Besucher
0 Mitglieder und 1 Gast sind Online

Wir begrüßen unser neuestes Mitglied: JenniCoope
Forum Statistiken
Das Forum hat 5521 Themen und 5523 Beiträge.

Heute waren 9 Mitglieder Online:
EdwarFult, JenniCoope, JoyceOleson, KathleeJones, ketoburn5xsharktank, ketoburnreview, NureBooz, RidenKate, tutolinklagajai


| FAQ