Cornell Hockey Sightings

Avash '05 wrote:
(Has a NY vs. Boston poll question been done before?)

Sully '00 wrote:

Kim - They plan on moving him into the rotation next year, which will be good for him and the team.

Adam Brown '03 wrote:

Alex Ross claimed in an email to INCH that he was the man in the Cornell sweater.

One thing I know is that I am "the guy in the Cornell sweater". And no matter what the rankings have Cornell at, they are #1. They are gonna win it all. GO BIG RED! — Alex Ross
PS: GO SOX, 9 more W's to REVERSE THE CURSE

Erica wrote:

Sully, I agree that he's done a decent job, but do you remember how horrendous the bullpen was in the beginning of the season? Maybe it's just that when I lived in Boston, the fatalistic attitude made it seem like they were worse than they actually were. My point isn't to compare it to the Yankees, my point is that most GM's wouldn't have the mostly unlimited resources ($$$$) that Theo had to be able to correct the bullpen. He did pretty much completely revamp it during the All-Star break. Not all teams have that luxury.

Rich H '96 wrote:
I'm actually thinking of trying to keep count of the number of time the word "curse" is uttered, or Babe Ruth is referenced during the broadcasts.

Rich H '96 wrote:

I agree with Keith. When you don't want flyballs, Lowe's the right choice. And a tired sinkerball pitcher is generally an effective sinkerball pitcher, anyway.

I do hate to 2nd guess Ken Macha, but Zito was tiring in the 6th, and it was obvious before ManRam's HR. And Melhuse for Dye can be overlooked because of Melhuse's success in the series, even though I didn't agree with the move. Long struck out on the exact same pitch the previous batter did...he should've known it was coming. Then again, I'm not in the batter's box.

me wrote:
If he had kept running, there wouldn't have been an argument - the ump even admitted this after the game. [/q]Agreed, to a point. If you want to blame Tejada (and Tejada certainly deserves some blame), fine. But I still think the judgment was the wrong one and he should have been awarded the plate (unless stopping was itself the crime - a tough interpretation).

[q]It's correct to say that it's illegal to block the plate if you don't have the ball. But look at the entire rule - "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand." If the catcher is in the act of fielding the ball, they have every right to the plate that the runner has. [/q] In this case "fielding the ball" refers to fielding a bunt down the line, not waiting for a throw. Until the catcher has the ball, setting up a barrier in front of the plate while waiting for the throw -- explicitly and solely to obstruct the runner -- is illegal.

[q]It was also correct to award Varitek home plate for that other obstruction call. He had already legally advanced to third, so any obstruction call after that awards him the next base - in this case, home.[/q] I agree with your interpretation of the rule, I just don't think it was obstruction in the first place. Chavez was making a play on the ball - he reached up to catch it and missed, and the guy backing up the play caught it.

[q]There were actually three obstruction/interference calls in that game - they didn't call Byrnes for shoving Varitek after the collision at the plate. That should have been called interference - Byrnes would have been called out and it's a dead ball.[/q] I don't buy this at all. At the time of the shove, Byrnes should already have been awarded home plate. Byrnes was hopping around after being tripped by Varitek, and Varitek ran into Byrnes. As much as everyone (especially the broadcast crew) seems to think Byrnes shoved Varitek in anger over the collision at the plate, I think it was because Varitek ran into him as he was hobbling around. Varitek didn't even visibly diverge from his path to the ball from the "shove" from Byrnes.

Dan '01 wrote:

[Q]And no matter how many announcers talk about "blocking the plate" as a skill, it is illegal when you don't have the ball. Byrnes should have been called safe on the obstruction.[/Q]

It's not illegal if you going for the ball. Since the throw was up the 3rd base line, Varitek had every right to block the plate in an attempt to field the throw. Great play by Varitek. Beside, Byrnes should have been called out for pushing Varitek when Varitek went to chase the ball down. Talk about interference, you can't push a guy just because you feel like it.

me wrote:

Tejada needs to know the rules of baseball - he's not automatically awarded the next base if he's obstructed with. Obstruction isn't always a dead ball (although interference is, except for "catcher's interference". If, in the ump's judgment, he would have advanced without the obstruction, then he's given the base. If he had kept running, there wouldn't have been an argument - the ump even admitted this after the game.

big red apple wrote:

Dan '01 wrote:

[Q] Wrong, and wrong.

I'm afraid those words apply to your argument. Sorry. The umps were dead right. And the A's are just dead.

Al DeFlorio wrote:

big red apple wrote:

Wrong, and wrong.

I'm afraid those words apply to your argument. Sorry. The umps were dead right. And the A's are just dead.

Dan '01 wrote:

[Q]Justice requires that the Yankees beat the Red Sox again.[/Q]
Ahem.....you have that backwards, it should read

"Justice requires that the Red Sox kick some Yankee ass"

Sully '00 wrote:
For their sake, I hope the Yanks don't end up playing the role of the Steelers this year - the cocky favorites who underestimate their opponent and the complain that "the best team didn't really win."

Rich H '96 wrote:

First, as far as "cocky" I think you've identified the wrong team. Or maybe you haven't really looked at ManRam's or Lowe's acts recently. Or read the Walker/Millar quotebook from an unbiased angle.

Second, maybe you're too young to know, but I always identify the University of Michigan hockey team as being the team who whines "the best team didn't win." I believe it was Brendan Morrison who said that in '97. And I'm sure a lot of us felt that way after the 2002 ECAC Finals. (Hey! Actual college hockey content! Hooray!)

Sully '00 wrote:
... A's appologists ... stop whining and that the Yanks and Sox just get ready to play ball. This is the freakin' tuck rule all over again, and while I love watching Oakland fans squirm, there's nothing more annoying than listening to people bitch about rules that were clearly enforced correctly.

me wrote:

I think the only thing left to argue is what constitutes "blocking the plate"? It's not as if Varitek (or any other catcher on any similar play) was lying across the plate. Byrnes could have avoided Varitek's leg with a better slide or by stepping over it.

big red apple wrote:

To call me an "A's apologist" is to just miss the point. It isn't the A's I am arguing on behalf of, the A's just happen to be the beneficiaries. You may disagree with me, but of the two of us, trust me, I am the disinterested observer.

You want to disagree with me? Fine. (I've come around on the Chavez/Varitek and Mueller/Tejada interference calls.) But don't call people that disagree with you whiners. It makes clear that "rational" isn't where you want the argument to go. You just want to take your win, and don't want anyone ruining your party.

And, seriously, the tuck rule is bullshit.

Sully '00 wrote:

I'm obviously not making friends here, so maybe I'll just come back after the series and either take my medicine or try not to gloat...

Sully '00 wrote:
You're right - I was more referring to the Steelers and to Yankee fans, not the team.

I'm obviously not making friends here, so maybe I'll just come back after the series and either take my medicine or try not to gloat...

Al DeFlorio wrote:

Let's look at this realistically. The ball was being thrown to Varitek by the pitcher, who was 50 or so feet away. Even a 60mph throw goes 50 feet in a half-second. What was Varitek supposed to do? Stand two yards from the plate awaiting the throw and them move over to the plate to tag the runner after he got the ball? Use some common sense.

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

I didn't actually see the play, but it sounds like a situation where the runner could/should have bowled over the catcher, who would never have caught the ball. Or am I missing something?

Sully '00 wrote:From my experience in the last few days, there seems to be a clear correlation between Yankee fans and people who think the A's got screwed.