In Wednesday's game vs. the Yankees, Brendan Harris hit a dribbler in
front of the mound. Pudge Rodriguez pounced on it and attempted to
throw out Harris. The ball hit Harris in the back just as his foot
landed on first base. The umpire called Harris out for interference
since he was running to first in fair territory. Replays clearly
showed that Harris was inside the foul line in fair territory.

Ron Coomer's take on it?

"Once Harris' foot hits first base there is no longer in fair/foul
line to be considered."

He repeated this about three times.

powrwrap wrote:
> In Wednesday's game vs. the Yankees, Brendan Harris hit a dribbler in
> front of the mound. Pudge Rodriguez pounced on it and attempted to
> throw out Harris. The ball hit Harris in the back just as his foot
> landed on first base. The umpire called Harris out for interference
> since he was running to first in fair territory. Replays clearly
> showed that Harris was inside the foul line in fair territory.
>
> Ron Coomer's take on it?
>
> "Once Harris' foot hits first base there is no longer in fair/foul
> line to be considered."
>
> He repeated this about three times.

Yeah, he was wrong. Not sure why there was any debate on it, it was clear
he was running on the wrong side of the line.

brink

"brink" <brinknospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6gn4rhFg9j7pU1@mid.individual.net...
> powrwrap wrote:
>> In Wednesday's game vs. the Yankees, Brendan Harris hit a dribbler in
>> front of the mound. Pudge Rodriguez pounced on it and attempted to
>> throw out Harris. The ball hit Harris in the back just as his foot
>> landed on first base. The umpire called Harris out for interference
>> since he was running to first in fair territory. Replays clearly
>> showed that Harris was inside the foul line in fair territory.
>>
>> Ron Coomer's take on it?
>>
>> "Once Harris' foot hits first base there is no longer in fair/foul
>> line to be considered."
>>
>> He repeated this about three times.
>
> Yeah, he was wrong. Not sure why there was any debate on it, it was clear
> he was running on the wrong side of the line.
>
> brink

Umps should be subjected to watch the game from start to end immediately
following the game. If they continue to miss the calls after the televised
replays (especially with balls and strikes at homeplate) they should be
demoted with a reduction in pay. Fans aren't looking for umpires being
showmen - we want accuracy.

> On Aug 19, 6:23 am, "thomas hagen" <hagentho...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Umps should be subjected to watch the game from start to end immediately
> following the game. If they continue to miss the calls after the televised
> replays (especially with balls and strikes at homeplate) they should be
> demoted with a reduction in pay. Fans aren't looking for umpires being
> showmen - we want accuracy.

Usenet posters should be subjected to reading posts from start to end
until they comprehend what is being said. If they continue to miss the
point of the posts they reply to, (especially to ones with provocative
words like 'silly' in the title) they should be bemoaned with relish
and flayed. Lurkers aren't looking for posters being blowhards--they
want clarity.

"powrwrap" <powrwrap@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bc78dc89-3f72-436e-a51f-85f39658d66d@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 6:23 am, "thomas hagen" <hagentho...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Umps should be subjected to watch the game from start to end immediately
> following the game. If they continue to miss the calls after the televised
> replays (especially with balls and strikes at homeplate) they should be
> demoted with a reduction in pay. Fans aren't looking for umpires being
> showmen - we want accuracy.

Usenet posters should be subjected to reading posts from start to end
until they comprehend what is being said. If they continue to miss the
point of the posts they reply to, (especially to ones with provocative
words like 'silly' in the title) they should be bemoaned with relish
and flayed. Lurkers aren't looking for posters being blowhards--they
want clarity.

Is the point not about umpires and their "Silly Rule Interpretation by Ron
Coomer"?
Should there be no accountability or at least have an effective system of
evaluations for umpires?

> On Aug 19, 5:42�pm, "thomas hagen" <hagentho...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Is the point not about umpires and their "Silly Rule Interpretation by Ron
> Coomer"?
> Should there be no accountability or at least have an effective system of
> evaluations for umpires?

Ron Coomer is not an umpire. He is a former MLB player and now a
commentator on TV for Twins broadcasts. The umpire made the correct
call. Ron Coomer was making stuff up about the rules.

This is the same Ron Coomer who, on a Twins pre-game show right before
the All-Star break, said it was too bad Livan Hernandez didn't have 1
more win (giving him 10 instead of 9) because then Livan would get
serious consideration for the American League All-Star team.

Evidently, Coomer didn't care about the nearly 6.00 E.R.A. and the
ungodly number of hits to innings pitched by our beloved Livan.

Dono Vox wrote:
> This is the same Ron Coomer who, on a Twins pre-game show right before
> the All-Star break, said it was too bad Livan Hernandez didn't have 1
> more win (giving him 10 instead of 9) because then Livan would get
> serious consideration for the American League All-Star team.
>
> Evidently, Coomer didn't care about the nearly 6.00 E.R.A. and the
> ungodly number of hits to innings pitched by our beloved Livan.

He was dead wrong on both those points.

On the other hand, I think he (and Roy Smalley too) do a good job of
commentary, sideline reporting, etc. Coomer seems to be a pretty good
observer and picks up a lot of things that fly under our radar as television
viewers... I think they both usually provide some nice fresh insights.

brink