Cornell Hockey Sightings

[ugarte]

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?

You are missing something.  Varitek wasn't in the baseline. only his leg was.  He was in a half-butterfly with his left leg across the plate.  

I'll give this to Varitek: If baseball is going to allow this, that play should be in Tom Emansky's next defensive drills video.  It was a PERFECT block.

[ugarte]

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.

Probably so, and I am rooting for the Yankees here, but in truth I live and die (mostly die) with the Pirates.

[q]
[q]And, seriously, the tuck rule is bullshit.[/q]

That made me laugh out loud. [/q]That's what I was going for.  Nobody hates anyone here.  Most of the time.



Post Edited (10-08-03 13:16)

[Keith K \'93]

[Q]I'll give this to Varitek: If baseball is going to allow this, that play should be in Tom Emansky's next defensive drills video. It was a PERFECT block.[/Q]
He's one of the best around at blocking the plate.  It may be "illegal" but so is leaning over the plate and getting hit by a pitch in the strike zone (well, that's not illegal, just a strike).  varitek has mastered a play that the umpires allow.

Since Varitek didn't have the ball and was mostly set up in front of the plate, it wouldn't have made sense for Byrnes to just bowl him over (that might even have been called obstruction!).  With the benefit of hindsight, maybe Byrnes should have slid wide and tagged the plate with his hand as he went by.  Or just gotten up and tagged it later :-)  Actually, the fact that Byrnes did hit Varitek's leg when sliding and was obviously a little shaken up (hobbling away) may have contributed to him not realizing he wasn't out and not going back to tag the base.

[Keith K \'93]

[Q]in truth I live and die (mostly die) with the Pirates.[/Q]
I am so sorry...

[Erica]

 One pet peeve of mine is the lumping of a fan-base into one generalized entity:  "All Yankee fans are cocky, arrogant, loudmouths"  "All Red Sox fans are whiny losers."  "All Dodger fans leave after the 7th innning."  "All Colgate fans are drunken fratboys."  "All Cornell fans swear every other word."  

Pet peeve of mine as well. And I absolutely cannot stand when people on this forum constantly label obnoxious hockey fans or line-cutters or facetimers as frat boys. The fact that they are frat boys does not make them obnoxious, and frat boys are certainly not the only obnoxious people in the world.  I agree that many of them are obnoxious, and because they are always in large quantities may make them stand out more, but please stop generalizing. Just as many of the obnoxious people are not in fraternities. Rich, you were in the band, you know how obnoxious we could be. While I'm at it, the whining about freshmen facetimers who don't know the "rules" of Lynah needs to stop. We were all freshmen at one point, and probably all clueless at one point as well. It's not really fair to say one person deserves a hockey ticket more than another. If a fan is willing to pay for them, he or she should be able to go. Ok, off my soapbox now, back to work.