Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/08/2017 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Here's a FED case. I think the same applies in OBR. 8.3.3 SITUATION H: B1 hits a long fly ball to left field. F7 goes back to the fence, leaps, but is not able to touch the fly ball. The ball then rebounds off the fence, strikes the fielder's glove and ricochets over the fence in fair territory. Is this a home run or ground-rule double? RULING: This would be considered a ground-rule double. To be a home run, the ball must clear the fence in flight. Action secondary to the hit (ball ricocheting off the fence and then off the fielder's glove) caused the ball to go into dead-ball area. Therefore, the hit shall be ruled a ground-rule double.
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    Damn @udbrky.............You have assisted me in remembering how the truth can hurt.
  4. 1 point
    Kylejt's suggestion of a Mizuno shirt one size larger feels and looks great.
  5. 1 point
    A few years ago when I was still a lawyer, I looked into this casually as a follow-up to a discussion my association had about not continuing to officiate after the game ended on a runs-ahead rule. I tracked down the actual policy, which said something like it covered all umpiring activity, with no express exclusion for any "not-a-real-game" umpiring. My opinion thus was that the policy did cover any umpiring activity, even "not-a-real-game" umpiring. Also, I believe courts construe ambiguous language, especially in insurance policies, against the drafter (i.e., the insurance company), strengthening my opinion. But don't quote me. I also knew that my state supreme court had some years earlier spelled out a strong assumption-of-the-risk rule for participants in any sports activity, so I felt doubly protected from liability. (If I recall correctly, the case was a gung-ho jerk in a Super Bowl party halftime touch football game caused grievous bodily injury to a non-athletic woman; held: he was not liable because she assumed the risk of all injury by participating in the game). Your state's mileage may differ. In fact, I believe that at least in my state, umpire insurance premiums are essentially donations to the insurance company, except for paying for a defense lawyer and for a satisfying superfluous sense of security. Of course, I'm a cynic. Disclaimer: Insurance coverage was never my specialty, I relied only on superficial research and law school knowledge, and I am no longer a lawyer. But I still believe my opinion is correct. I would like to hear of any final trial verdicts (not settlements) holding umpires liable for any umpiring activity. Preferably with citations to an official source, and not to friends of cousins. But it is a foolproof way of declining to continue to umpire games that are going to come unglued because the participants no longer consider them for real.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I gave you a "confused" face because a "surprised" face was not available. Why the Ehch-Eee-Double Hockey Stick aren't you doing this already??!! Why aren't we sending our busted-up CPs and shinguards to you to be refurbished??! Oh. You're in Vermont. Grrrr.
  8. 1 point
    Nope! Any chance I get to show of my obnoxious gold "W"...I take it!
  9. 1 point
    1996 Douglas chest protector with added gap protection (Douglas did the biothane, I did the custom plates) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. 1 point
    I assume nothing. If only one person reads it and doesn't post the question as a result, you're ahead.
  11. 1 point
    Yes. It's an appeal, not a force play, and thus a time play. I think the site needs a banner with this play on it, which seems to be asked every 3 days.
  12. 1 point