Jump to content

Jimurray

Established Member
  • Posts

    6,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Jimurray last won the day on December 24 2025

Jimurray had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

20,896 profile views

Jimurray's Achievements

1.9k

Reputation

7

Community Answers

  1. I had a conversation with Brennan Miller on Refmasters. He signals it with 1 out cnbfigs also to remind himself.
  2. FED has an interp that allows a fake catch of a throw by the outfielder by the fielder on a base.
  3. I wouldn’t call that “codified”. What state associations don’t opt for other shirt colors?
  4. That would depend on the path of the ball and location of the fielder/s.
  5. The “stretch” is optional. A “complete stop” is not. Could be a balk. Could be a quick pitch. Or not.
  6. NFHS requires ejected players to stay in the dugout unless they become disruptive there. If so they go to the bus with a coach. If you have a small roster you might reconsider doing a 10 man lineup and reenforce not doing anything to get ejected. NFHS can finish with 8 with an out in the missing slot.
  7. That’s wrong. DH and defensive player are locked into 1 batting order slot and can’t be on defense at the same time. Aside for OP. Player can’t be restricted for that, only ejected.
  8. If you are only calling the parallel pivot foot windup the “hybrid” you are correct. But NFHS originally called any angular pivot foot position with the free foot in front of the rubber as “hybrid”. Other than a sideways stance with parallel pivot foot, angular stances are legal.
  9. Hybrid stance is legal.
  10. This might be another balk for throwing to F3 off the base. This would be the third one recently where I had an obvious attempt to retire the runner but MLB umpires didn’t.
  11. Might explain the movement of the ball/F2.
  12. If the catcher’s gyrations were due to wind affecting the ball it could be judged not ordinary effort. Wind is a factor in judging ordinary effort.
  13. You and he are missing last year's or maybe the year before Hopkins memo that explained the rationale. I doubt that this a misprint. But even with the phrase in the book last year Hopkins wanted the call on the release of the throw. I think his memo or the POE references the rules committee. How would your guy not know?
  14. That is the exception that still remains. The discussion is about the exception that was removed. It was removed so NFHS could justify its interp of calling RLI as soon as a throw was made with a B-R out of the lane. We no longer wait to see if the throw retires the runner.
×
×
  • Create New...