Despite finishing the season strong and deserving to host, the Lady Bears got sent to play in the TAMU Regional. Their 1st game is at 3:30pm local time vs McNeese St.

Tough draw. I think we can beat the Aggies, but @Florida in round 2 is a killer.

All 13 SEC teams are in; 9 are hosting.

Boy Howdie, I do wish the ladies the best. Obviously !

But one pitcher, (Rodoni), isn't going to cut it. She isn't a Christi Canion. Yes she's good, I just don't think she durable. And Reagan Green, bless her heart, isn't the answer for some of those power teams up ahead.

Sure hope Coach has got an eye on a good one to recruit.

P.S. I do like the move of Kettler to 3rd base. The infield is where she excelled in high school. Hope Coach sticks with this idea.

I don't like our chances riding one horse in a pitcher like we do every year.

greggor25 said:

---

I don't like our chances riding one horse in a pitcher like we do every year.

---

What's this "every year" stuff?? Agreed, we only have one legit pitcher this year but Moore usually has at least two. This season has been an unfortunate exception, however.

Lady Bears blanked PV A&M 9-0 today, then blanked McNeese 6-0 in the rematch. Next up is Aggy on Sunday, must beat them twice.

Gia Rodoni threw her third post season no-hitter today against McNeese State. She also had two last season in the Waco regional.

The game is in a weather delay, first pitch now scheduled for 3:20pm

Now the start has been pushed back to 4pm

Looks like first game won't start till after 7:30. Does this mean we could pitch our ace tonight and tomorrow? Assuming 2nd game would be tomorrow. Not sure how much the college softball pitchers throw.

Yes, this could work in our favor. Have to win the first game, but if they do then Rodoni could go again tomorrow.

Big_Pumpin said:

---

Looks like first game won't start till after 7:30. Does this mean we could pitch our ace tonight and tomorrow? Assuming 2nd game would be tomorrow. Not sure how much the college softball pitchers throw.

---

Where is this schedule information coming from? Local radio?

longtimebear said:

---

Where is this schedule information coming from? Local radio?

---

Watching (on & off) other games on ESPN

They are planning to play game 2 tonight if they can start by 11pm.

That sux

Game now on SEC network

HoustonBear15 said:

---

They are planning to play game 2 tonight if they can start by 11pm.

---

...or not.

Combination of umps BS strike zone and overruling the called out at first made for a tough inning.

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

I hate those mouth-breathers.

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

Johnny Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

This is a tricky one. First, it does appear after looking closely at it on replay that her foot was off the bag to the inside, but even the replay was a poor angle. Mechanically with 3-man umpiring mechanics, and a runner on first, the home plate umpire's responsibility would be to third to get the call on the runner that was on first. However, this only occurs when there is a clean base hit to the outfield, so on this call, he would follow the batter-runner to have an angle on the pulled foot at first. But, this is an appeal play, and it is unusual for umpires to confer without a formal appeal executed properly. The fact that the umpires conferred absent a formal appeal is unusual. It is especially unusual for the plate umpire to call the conference under these circumstances since it is not his original call. If there's going to be a conference, it is usually instituted by the umpire making the call, who could need help if he or she is "straightlined." This can happen, and often does when the play becomes unusual. I did not see the U-1 straightlined on replay.

---

BUbackerinET said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

This is a tricky one. First, it does appear after looking closely at it on replay that her foot was off the bag to the inside, but even the replay was a poor angle. Mechanically with 3-man umpiring mechanics, and a runner on first, the home plate umpire's responsibility would be to third to get the call on the runner that was on first. However, this only occurs when there is a clean base hit to the outfield, so on this call, he would follow the batter-runner to have an angle on the pulled foot at first. But, this is an appeal play, and it is unusual for umpires to confer without a formal appeal executed properly. The fact that the umpires conferred absent a formal appeal is unusual. It is especially unusual for the plate umpire to call the conference under these circumstances since it is not his original call. If there's going to be a conference, it is usually instituted by the umpire making the call, who could need help if he or she is "straightlined." This can happen, and often does when the play becomes unusual. I did not see the U-1 straightlined on replay.

---

---

True, and the definitive way the first base ump emphatically made the "out" call sure didn't look like someone who was indecisive or who felt like they needed "assistance" with the call.

Johnny Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

---

The official explanation is the home plate umpire saw her foot off the bag.

It's umpiring 101. After the ball is in play, the home plate umpire comes up the line to serve as a second set of eyes. His angle is one million times better than the base umpire when it comes to a pulled foot.

The base umpire called what he saw in time. Ball there in time, runner out.

The home umpire called what he saw. Ball there in time. Foot off bag. Runner safe.

The base umpire correctly deferred to the home umpire and the right call was made.

It sucked, but it was correct.

Johnny Bear said:

---

BUbackerinET said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

This is a tricky one. First, it does appear after looking closely at it on replay that her foot was off the bag to the inside, but even the replay was a poor angle. Mechanically with 3-man umpiring mechanics, and a runner on first, the home plate umpire's responsibility would be to third to get the call on the runner that was on first. However, this only occurs when there is a clean base hit to the outfield, so on this call, he would follow the batter-runner to have an angle on the pulled foot at first. But, this is an appeal play, and it is unusual for umpires to confer without a formal appeal executed properly. The fact that the umpires conferred absent a formal appeal is unusual. It is especially unusual for the plate umpire to call the conference under these circumstances since it is not his original call. If there's going to be a conference, it is usually instituted by the umpire making the call, who could need help if he or she is "straightlined." This can happen, and often does when the play becomes unusual. I did not see the U-1 straightlined on replay.

---

---

True, and the definitive way the first base ump emphatically made the "out" call sure didn't look like someone who was indecisive or who felt like they needed "assistance" with the call.

---

Yes, your observation is correct. Generally, in this situation, once the out is called, the opposing coach will call time, and go to the umpire who had responsibility for and made the call. Often, it's something like "hey, I think she pulled her foot, or her foot never got to the bag after she jumped for the catch. You had a lot going on with the catch and touch, so could you get some help and make sure it's right?" On this kind of play, getting together would have been virtually automatic because of the situation, and at that point, the plate umpire would have reversed the call, so either way, it would have been reversed - the odd part on this one was the way the conference occurred BEFORE the appeal was properly made.

I think you are all wrong in your assumption the appeal was incorrectly made. I wasnt there and if you watched it on TV, you may be assuming this. But when you replay it--there is no video evidence an appeal was incorrectly made.

1:15:30

1. The out is called. The 1B coach immediately goes nuts and starts pointing.
2. The umpire then leaves the vision of the camera.
3. At 1:15:46 the camera picks up the umpire again who has obviously just left a meeting with the Aggie head coach in the middle of the field.
4. He starts walking toward home plate. The camera stays on the Aggie coach.
5. At 1:15:50 you can tell by the Baylor 1B reaction she knows they saw her pulled foot.
6. At 1:15:58 the call has been overturned and Coach Smith is getting the explanation.

Everything looks legit.

Guarantee that umpire conference went like this:
1B: She wants to know...
HP: Her foot was off the bag. I was looking straight up the line.
1B: You sure?
HP: 100%.
1B: Okay. Let's reverse my call.

BUbackerinET said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

BUbackerinET said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

The call at first was huge. Would've been a tied game if it wasn't for that.

---

It was the right call. Her foot was off the bag.

---

I didn't see that at all. It was "bang-bang", but her foot was on the bag and the first "bang" was the ball in her glove. More importantly, the first base ump, who 100% has the call (or at least should have) called the out. I personally don't ever recall seeing that kind of a play being over-ruled or changed by another ump or umps or a group discussion in either a softball or a baseball game where video review isn't in force (as it now is in pro baseball). I thought Coach Moore showed a lot of restraint in not getting himself tossed over it.

Does anyone know what the "official" explanation of it was?

This is a tricky one. First, it does appear after looking closely at it on replay that her foot was off the bag to the inside, but even the replay was a poor angle. Mechanically with 3-man umpiring mechanics, and a runner on first, the home plate umpire's responsibility would be to third to get the call on the runner that was on first. However, this only occurs when there is a clean base hit to the outfield, so on this call, he would follow the batter-runner to have an angle on the pulled foot at first. But, this is an appeal play, and it is unusual for umpires to confer without a formal appeal executed properly. The fact that the umpires conferred absent a formal appeal is unusual. It is especially unusual for the plate umpire to call the conference under these circumstances since it is not his original call. If there's going to be a conference, it is usually instituted by the umpire making the call, who could need help if he or she is "straightlined." This can happen, and often does when the play becomes unusual. I did not see the U-1 straightlined on replay.

---

---

True, and the definitive way the first base ump emphatically made the "out" call sure didn't look like someone who was indecisive or who felt like they needed "assistance" with the call.

---

Yes, your observation is correct. Generally, in this situation, once the out is called, the opposing coach will call time, and go to the umpire who had responsibility for and made the call. Often, it's something like "hey, I think she pulled her foot, or her foot never got to the bag after she jumped for the catch. You had a lot going on with the catch and touch, so could you get some help and make sure it's right?" On this kind of play, getting together would have been virtually automatic because of the situation, and at that point, the plate umpire would have reversed the call, so either way, it would have been reversed - the odd part on this one was the way the conference occurred BEFORE the appeal was properly made.

---

It's even more "odd" that it got reversed. Managers/coaches question and argue calls all the time, but how often do you see an emphatic call like that get reversed by another umpire? Makes about as much sense as a home plate umpire making an out call on a bang-bang play at the plate and the 1st base umpire over-ruling it because as he saw it, the tag was missed.

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's even more "odd" that it got reversed. Managers/coaches question and argue calls all the time, but how often do you see an emphatic call like that get reversed by another umpire? Makes about as much sense as a home plate umpire making an out call on a bang-bang play at the plate and the 1st base umpire over-ruling it because as he saw it, the tag was missed.

---

Ya'll are reading way too much into the emphasis of the call. I spent 20 years umpiring. A few at the D3 level.

He's simply calling that the ball beat her there. It was a bang bang play and in bang bang plays you call emphatically. He's also well aware the foot may not be on the bag. He can't see that from inside the field. He's praying his partner did his job and came up the line.

He can't indicate anything about a pulled foot. That's on the coaches. He's quite simply calling ball beat runner to the bag. That's it.

Once the coach enters the scene, he gets the help he needs.

El Oso said:

---

I think you are all wrong in your assumption the appeal was incorrectly made. I wasnt there and if you watched it on TV, you may be assuming this. But when you replay it--there is no video evidence an appeal was incorrectly made.

1:15:30

1. The out is called. The 1B coach immediately goes nuts and starts pointing.
2. The umpire then leaves the vision of the camera.
3. At 1:15:46 the camera picks up the umpire again who has obviously just left a meeting with the Aggie head coach in the middle of the field.
4. He starts walking toward home plate. The camera stays on the Aggie coach.
5. At 1:15:50 you can tell by the Baylor 1B reaction she knows they saw her pulled foot.
6. At 1:15:58 the call has been overturned and Coach Smith is getting the explanation.

Everything looks legit.

Guarantee that umpire conference went like this:
1B: She wants to know...
HP: Her foot was off the bag. I was looking straight up the line.
1B: You sure?
HP: 100%.
1B: Okay. Let's reverse my call.

---

Watched it again. Obvious bang bang play, foot contacting bag with ball in glove is the first "bang". First base ump correctly made the "out" call. Should've been end of story. Appreciate and respect your experience, but that's what I've seen every time I've viewed it.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Watched it again. Obvious bang bang play, foot contacting bag with ball in glove is the first "bang". First base ump correctly made the "out" call. Should've been end of story. Appreciate and respect your experience, but that's what I've seen every time I've viewed it.

---

That's cool. There's no real definitive camera angle--you kind of have to put things together to get to the point I am making. Two final points. Not trying to argue--just observations on the rewatch I just did.

1. When she catches the ball (1:15:34) she is clearly off the bag (right foot on the ground toward second base--left foot in the air). You can see her reach for the bag with her left foot. If you watch the foot, it lands and doesn't move. To me--that means she didn't catch any part of the bag. If you land on something an inch off the ground--your foot is going to roll (or move in some way).

But to me--this second point is the deal breaker for Baylor.

2. Read our first baseman's lips. She says, "I tagged her." (1:15:52) No need to tag her if you landed on the bag. It's a force play and once you contact the bag--the runner is out. Nobody has argued she was out on the tag. The argument from everybody has been she was out on the catch. And it's pretty obvious from video that the tag was on the butt while the runner was past the bag (1:15:36). But our first baseman's defense was "I tagged her." That's an outright admission she missed the bag in my book.

El Oso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Watched it again. Obvious bang bang play, foot contacting bag with ball in glove is the first "bang". First base ump correctly made the "out" call. Should've been end of story. Appreciate and respect your experience, but that's what I've seen every time I've viewed it.

---

That's cool. There's no real definitive camera angle--you kind of have to put things together to get to the point I am making. Two final points. Not trying to argue--just observations on the rewatch I just did.

1. When she catches the ball (1:15:34) she is clearly off the bag (right foot on the ground toward second base--left foot in the air). You can see her reach for the bag with her left foot. If you watch the foot, it lands and doesn't move. To me--that means she didn't catch any part of the bag. If you land on something an inch off the ground--your foot is going to roll (or move in some way).

But to me--this second point is the deal breaker for Baylor.

2. Read our first baseman's lips. She says, "I tagged her." (1:15:52) No need to tag her if you landed on the bag. It's a force play and once you contact the bag--the runner is out. Nobody has argued she was out on the tag. The argument from everybody has been she was out on the catch. And it's pretty obvious from video that the tag was on the butt while the runner was past the bag (1:15:36). But our first baseman's defense was "I tagged her." That's an outright admission she missed the bag in my book.

---

Guess we'll agree to disagree, which is also cool.

I'm sure we do agree that the job of umps, officials, referees, etc. in sports is a tough and thankless one - I know I'd never try to do it. As a sports fan, however, I am grateful that there are people - like you - who will do it.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Watched it again. Obvious bang bang play, foot contacting bag with ball in glove is the first "bang". First base ump correctly made the "out" call. Should've been end of story. Appreciate and respect your experience, but that's what I've seen every time I've viewed it.

---

Actually, it is not the end of the story. A Head Coach can make an appeal on a pulled foot, bobbled ball, or dropped ball any time before the next pitch. El Oso is most likely correct is his "conversation" between the Plate and 1st base umpire.

The 1st base ump is supposed to lineup 12-18 feet away from the play. In High School, the foot-pull is still our call; however, the Plate ump is supposed to travel up the line to assist.

Just looked at Super Regional matchups

9 of 17 are SEC teams. WOW!!! Why so many good teams? Bigger recruiting budgets?