Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


scrounge last won the day on October 28

scrounge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,134 Excellent

About scrounge

  • Birthday 01/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    central Ohio

More information about you

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

Recent Profile Visitors

11,160 profile views
  1. Assigning Expectations

    Then they get exactly the product they deserve
  2. Gurriel's action and punishment

    I think they were trying to send a message without risking getting it caught up in the CBA. Ideally, Gurriel wouldn't have appealed - but he could, and that would have pushed it to next season anyway. And then, the standard for this in past was only a game or two, so 5 games is a significant increase. He'll still lose 5 games of salary, though the immediacy and impact of 1 series game would have been better.
  3. Assigning Expectations

    Yea, I don't think it's reasonable to ask for extra on something unforeseeable like this, though I don't think you should feel guilty of declining if the reschedule is so different that you reasonably can't make it because of later plans. If you have a 'conflict' 3 hours from 1st pitch, that's not reasonable. But if it's 5 hrs from the scheduled 2nd half of a DH and now they want to flip the 1st game to the 2nd? Well, that's more understandable. All of that is out the window if it's just something like the coaches rescheduling the game beforehand but not bothering to tell you...screw them, then, but weather/field/other outside circumstances, I think we have to be reasonably flexible and accept this kind of thing as the flip side of the 1 inning rainout/1:15 run rule/etc. The philosophy I've always tried to stick to - and I created this all by myself - is that you take the good, you take the bad, you take them all and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life.
  4. Backswing interference?

    Indeed....while I agree with @hbk314 that, in my opinion, the original ruling was correct and supportable by the rule, MLB has decided otherwise. They are - definitionally - right. Much like the Supreme Court, they're not the final say because they're intrinsically right, they're by definition right because they're the final say. They could change that interpretation next year or ten years from now, but going forward, this is the interpretation and the rule. I'd also add that Torre and MLB *should* have put something out along the lines of "This rule is not entirely clear with potentially conflicting or vague aspects. While we believe the field ruling to be incorrect after further review, we will clarify and streamline this rule to make it easier to administer in the future" instead of just off-hand saying "Yea, Jerry got it wrong" in a radio interview. But I guess that would be asking too much of them to shoulder some of that responsibility.
  5. Backswing interference?

    I still think they had it right the first time, the comment can't be read in isolation of the overall context of the rule, but since they are - by definition - right, that settles it. Or does it? Is this a binding interpretation or something that the rules committee or other such body has to endorse/clarify/adopt?
  6. 2018 NFHS Casebook

    Our long national nightmare is finally over! Seriously, just glad to put this molehill to bed.
  7. How in the world can you change that call?

    Or at the least, if did only hear two sounds, unless you're ABSOLUTELY sure one of those sounds was something hitting wood, let the call on the field (yes, I know there's no review here - for some unfathomable reason - it's just a figure of speech) stand. Use the football analogy - start with a presumption that the initial call is correct, only change if there is definitive evidence to do so. This was a very unfortunate reversal, luckily to be relegated to obscurity due to the outcome. But Wolf was one Dodger hit away from being Don Denkinger II Electric Boogaloo.
  8. How in the world can you change that call?

    Oh, I believe they heard two sounds...ground and glove. If that's all the evidence you have - and no one actually SAW the bat hit the ball - what the hell guys? What are we doing reversing that, no matter who made the decision?
  9. How in the world can you change that call?

    Well, definitely NOT a Cubs fan and thinking the same thing. And how is this not reviewable?
  10. Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

  11. Play at the plate

    If he's got the ball, he can stand wherever he wants. Yes, he can block the plate.
  12. Strike Call

    Really? What a petty thing to judge someone about....but I guess that doesn't surprise me. On the list of top 50 things I'd worry about in regards to someone's mechanics, this is #147.
  13. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    maybe some, but i'd take tired Quintana over Carl The Walker Edwards or John freakin' Lackey anyday.
  14. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    Maddon just went off on the field umpires, knowing full well they'd have to eject him, to take the focus off his disastrous decision to pull Quintana early when he knew he had a gassed and ineffective bullpen. Two of the worst pitching management games I've seen all year.
  15. Backswing interference?

    ok, now that makes sense....taken in isolation, the comment appears to be very black and white, with no exception. However, since it appears in the same section as batter interfering with a play, it seems logical that it would be bound by the conditions and context of that same section. If it were intended as a global action in the event of backswing interference, it would be a standalone item. Rather, it's a modifier of interfering with the play, carving out an exception to the batter being out, but still applying to the context of interfering with a play. Since no possible play here, the section - along with the comment - doesn't apply.