Just another WordPress site

There was also a referee who acknowledged the error in Jamsil and conveyed his opinion on defense interference.

On May 20th, the face-to-face match between Hanwha Eagles and LG Twins was held at Jamsil Stadium, with a pitcher match. A tight one-on-one match continued with the better-than-expected pitching of Hanwha replacement starter Lee Tae-yang and the stable pitching of LG foreign pitcher Adam Plutko.

The situation in question occurred at the end of the 9th inning. At the end of the ninth inning, where the score was 1:1, LG seemed to seize the opportunity to finish with a hit by Shin Min-jae, the lead hitter. Lee Heo pinch hitter Jung Joo-hyun tried a fake bunt and slash.

While first base runner Shin Min-jae stopped stealing second base, Hanwha Battery pitched out and caught the stealing timing. At that moment, Jung Joo-hyun, who was in a hurry, threw the bat outside, and the bat hit Hanwha catcher Choi Jae-hoon and came out.

Choi Jae-hoon, who was suddenly hit by a lightning bolt, collapsed without even attempting to throw to second base and complained of pain. Jung Joo-Hyun’s bat left his hand and flew toward Choi Jae-Hoon, so the judgment of defensive obstruction seemed strong.

However, a 4-sim agreement was reached over the scene. Pitcher Kwon Yeong-chul, first base umpire Jeon Il-soo, second base umpire Kim Byung-joo, and third base umpire Yu Deok-hyung, who were in charge of the Jamsil match, gathered on the ground and after a lengthy agreement, decided to interfere with the strike, not defense. As a result, Jung Joo-hyeon got the right to automatically reach base, and the situation was connected to 1st and 2nd base. Hanwha coach Choi Won-ho immediately came to the ground and protested, but the result did not change.

In the end, the KBO eventually recognized it as a misjudgment. The KBO said, “Through the 4th trial agreement, the decision was judged to be Choi Jae-hoon’s obstruction of the bat, but as a result of additional confirmation by the KBO referee committee, it should have been judged as a defensive obstruction rather than an obstruction of the bat.” We plan to take follow-up measures such as disciplinary action.”

Obstruction of hitting and obstruction of defense are judged based on whether the bat gets out of the batter’s hand. If the bat hits the catcher’s mitt or the body of the catcher while the bat is in the batter’s hand during the swing process, it is recognized as hitting interference and the batter gets the right to automatically reach base.

Conversely, if the bat flies toward the catcher’s mitt or the catcher’s body after getting out of the batter’s hand during the swing process and interferes with the defensive situation, a defense obstruction judgment must be made. In this case, the batter is declared out and the runner cannot advance due to the dead ball situation. If the catcher puts a runner out in that situation, it is assumed that there was no interference and the runner out judgment remains and no batter is put out.체스카지노

The 4th trial consensus decision is final and cannot be overturned. As a result of the MK Sports coverage, it was known that the referees had mixed opinions during the 4th trial consensus decision process.

An on-site official who watched the situation at Jamsil Stadium said, “It was an excessive situation at the moment, so in the process of discussing the 4th trial consensus decision, the referees had different opinions, so the time to discuss the consensus decision was prolonged. Some referees said it was defensive obstruction. I sent an atmospheric depth sign that allowed me to see the TV relay screen, but he seems to have judged it to be an obstruction by only looking at the screen taken from one angle. Later, when I looked at the screen from various angles, as a result, I was in a situation where I had to judge it as a defense obstruction.”

The 4th trial agreement decision is a final and irreversible decision. The KBO announced that it would punish the referee. However, as a result of MK Sports coverage, the internal atmosphere is that the misjudgment of the 4th trial is not a matter of heavy punishment such as demotion to the 2nd group or a fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *