Advertisement

by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:31 pm

by Frenline Delpha » Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:40 pm


by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:25 pm

by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:35 pm
Gim wrote:Idzequitch wrote:Arrieta is the primary reason. That and the Pirates inability to bat against him.
Well, he is a big reason as well, but game would have been 0-0 tied, had it not been for the defensive weakness of the Pirates.
Arrieta was great; don't get me wrong. I have utmost respect for the guy.

by Gim » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:39 pm
Idzequitch wrote:Gim wrote:
Well, he is a big reason as well, but game would have been 0-0 tied, had it not been for the defensive weakness of the Pirates.
Arrieta was great; don't get me wrong. I have utmost respect for the guy.
The Pirates aren't a very strong defensive team. That was true both with Kang, and without.

by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:47 pm

by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:56 pm

by Gim » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:58 pm
Idzequitch wrote:Gim wrote:
Okay, maybe it was Cole's fault, rather than the absence of Kang Jung-Ho, although Kang's really not a bad player at all.
Here's the thing. Instances where you can blame a win or a loss entirely on one player and few and far between. It's a team game, won and lost by teams. The Pirates' shortcoming was a team issue, and to try to pin that loss on any one player is honestly erroneous.
And finally, I never said Kang was a bad player, so please stop pretending that I did.

by San Llera » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:11 pm

by Gim » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:12 pm
San Llera wrote:"e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."
MLB has a lot of explaining to do.
by San Llera » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:15 pm
Gim wrote:San Llera wrote:"e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."
MLB has a lot of explaining to do.
When did a controversy related to this happen?

by Idzequitch » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:17 pm
San Llera wrote:"e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."
MLB has a lot of explaining to do.

by Schiltzberg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:14 am

by Schiltzberg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:15 am

by Eastern Equestria » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:23 am
San Llera wrote:"e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."
MLB has a lot of explaining to do.

by Schiltzberg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:12 am

by Schiltzberg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:24 am

by Schiltzberg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:32 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: In-dia, The Astral Mandate
Advertisement