Posted on 05/09/2015 3:15:46 AM PDT by Squawk 8888
It was your original assertion that catcher’s interference was not applicable to a steal of home, and now you decide that Robinson was out. Stick to one story.
I think the issue of which item the foot hit first, the glove or the plate is too close to call, and there is no indisputable visual evidence that I’ve seen.
Besides in special relativity, the sequence of events depends on the reference frame of the observer. Clearly, Robinson approaches the plate at relativistic speed, so a runner who is safe in a reference frame attached to the umpire may be out in a reference frame attached to the catcher.
No. You brought up interference first. Have been following that play since I can remember, and never heard that was an issue till you made the assumption.
Even the great Walter Johnson remarked about a number of black players (Josh Gibson) he faced in exhibitions that it was too bad they were black because they'd be excellent players.
It's just a shame that blacks weren't allowed many years earlier. If Jack Johnson and Joe Louis were fighting white boxers many years earlier, I'm sure blacks playing in the majors would have been accepted by the great majority of white baseball fans at an earlier date.
You have a point. I had never heard the issue raised before, either, but it certainly looks like it to me. Regardless, it’s an iconic moment in sports history that all true sports fans can appreciate just for the drama, involving iconic players: Ford, Berra, Robinson.
I didn’t know that Robinson had tripled off Ford, who was subsequently relieved. (Or was he? Not sure.)
BTW, if you google it, others have commented on the apparent interference. It certainly looks that way to me, but we can agree to disagree.
I will admit to liking the older, less showoffy black players from previous generations than a lot of the younger tattooed players of today many of whom scream, shout, and boast about what they did after every play. I don't much like overly tattooed, boastful players of whatever color.
I'm surprised a movie hasn't been made about Montreal in the late 40's...
Jackie Robinson was a darn fine American and that’s what matters. He had grit, character, and loyalty; heroes should be looked up to for who they are not what color they are.
Robinson’s color is only relevant to the extent it imposed hurdles he had to overcome. That parasites like Al Sharpton try to attach themselves to his achievements is disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.