Register or Sign In to remove these ads

scrounge

Members
  • Content count

    1,906
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

885 Good

About scrounge

  • Birthday 01/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://huntingrangefinderreview.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location central Ohio

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire? Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

9,895 profile views
  1. Hamari too quick?

    Your fanboy is showing
  2. Hamari too quick?

    NS knew exactly what he was doing, as did every single person in the park....Hamari did the right thing at the right time.
  3. Starting F1 Doesn't Face a Batter

    I would say yes....for that game. But if the game never happened and is rescheduled, then those wouldn't be operative. It really gets to the (somewhat pedantic) point of what the indiv state/region policy is on this, if there is even one. We can definitively say that, by rule, the game did not start on the given day. Now is it the same game that is just suspended and continued - and indeed, started - on a separate day? Can you suspend something that didn't occur? I guess. But I'd say it makes much more sense to simply say that game never started, it didn't happen, it was rescheduled. Different lineups, start over. But like Rich said....seriously? Look up, people. Or get that magic first pitch in!
  4. Starting F1 Doesn't Face a Batter

    In the first case, since per 4-1-5 the game never started, I'd say there's nothing to resume and the lineups that were accepted for Wed's game don't apply since it's not Wed and there was no game yet. Does it explicitly say so? No, but that seems to me the best way to handle. In the second case - I think it definitely matters - we have an actual game, that is now suspended. So all actions with that game pick up as if they were the same day. Now I'd say visitor F1 does have to face a batter, pending the other exceptions (injury, etc).
  5. Starting F1 Doesn't Face a Batter

    Hmm, interesting question. I don't think it would apply, because the game has not started. Though the lineups were accepted, this is a no contest: Rule 4-1-5 ART. 5 . . . The game begins when the umpire calls "Play" after all infielders, pitcher, catcher and batter are in position to start the game.
  6. Get out the red nose and the big floppy shoes, the clown is back!
  7. What happened to the strike zone?

    I'm not saying you're exaggerating...but belt high pitches consistently called balls? Shin balls always getting called strikes? Some kind of mass, magical conversion where everyone changed? Umm.....
  8. When To Call It

    Sure, it does, but if you're really close to darkness, why bother? Now, if the top half goes 20 mins or something, then nothing you could do. But if it's highly unlikely to get another inning in, I'm with @LRZ. Not that it would be any real trouble for us, but it's cleaner for all involved.
  9. When To Call It

    @udbrky and @stkjock, you two may need to pick up that sarcasm detector from the shop! That, or @maven really is the umpire world's biggest uber nerd!
  10. Obstruction... discretion?

    Indeed, minimum of one base for high school rules. If the runner was already past 2B when obstruction occurred, then 3B was automatic.
  11. New MLB Slide Rule ..... example?

    I guess he was just straight enough and didn't deviate to get the call. I suppose I can see it not getting called, with the initial pushback the first few weeks the rule got. Not as egregious as a couple other examples the last few weeks.
  12. The toughest balk that we need to get....

    Yea, that's just a regular ole jump throw to any level I'm doing....
  13. Coaches Interference

    There is virtually no way I'd call coaches interference on that. The coach has to intentionally interfere to get this call if he's in foul territory. This doesn't sound like it comes anywhere near that threshold. All the detail is interesting....but not terribly relevant in my opinion. Sounds like you're building the case that the coach had some duty to look where the ball was and actively get out of the way. That's not at all what's meant by intentional interference. Quite often, base coaches aren't looking for the ball - they're coaching the runners. As long as the base coach didn't actively do something explicit to interfere with the fielder's throwing lane (jump into his way, actively try to shield him, etc) and the coach is in foul territory, this is a big bag of nothing.
  14. Now that's first class Minor League level of ejection tantrum, there....all that's missing is the grenade throw.
  15. As @noumpere said, it's a specified penalty for violation of a safety rule. The Fed powers that be have judged this FPSR violation (rightly, IMO) as so important that it explicitly differs from the other interference rules and requires the 2nd out as the penalty.