Register or Sign In to remove these ads

Richvee

Members
  • Content count

    3,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,483 Excellent

About Richvee

  • Birthday 09/30/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sussex County, NJ

More information about you

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

Recent Profile Visitors

10,280 profile views
  1. It's PU/BU calls as Maven states, however, no need to signal/call outs on cans of corn unless something weird happens. I've been dinged as BU in evaluations for signaling routine flyouts.
  2. You're correct. There's no "run to the pitcher's mound with the ball and runners have to stop/return" rule in little league, although somewhere along the line this myth has been perpetuated.
  3. hmmm maybe it was never secured...Leads me to believe I'm pretty sure I would have missed that live if I missed it after watching a few replays
  4. By the wording of Fred's 2nd post, It sounds like he saw it called as an illegal and is asking why it was called that way..
  5. All day
  6. That was pretty much what I figured. That's another way you could describe it....adjusting the ball in the glove....but certainly more than "momentary" adjustment. I was BU and I did discreetly tell him in between batters he needed to stop the glove from moving to be set. It did the trick.
  7. F1 stretches and comes set. Everything is stopped, except he's got that glove "fluttering". Not wildly, almost more like "vibrating" or a consistent twitching. Does this need to completely stop before he begins his motion to pitch? ( no stop balk?)
  8. I the FED case play, F2 bobbles the throw. (never had possession). Here, F2 has the ball, and it falls out during the tag attempt. I don't think that's the same. I don't have obstruction here. F2 was set up with the ball prior to R2 arriving. F2 did not impeded, nor cause R2 to veer off course without possession of the ball.
  9. Well, as it has been stated by others, if we see R1 veer off path to get in F4's way, or grab him,etc, we have INT. If R1'srunning to 2nd, F4's running to cover 1B, all else being equal, I have nothing but OBS. Intent by R1 would certainly be judgement.
  10. If R1 is standing near 1B, "intentionally" blocking F4 from getting there..Just throw the ball to 2B. F3 has all day to throw it there if R1 isn't running as in the OP.
  11. What @scrounge said....I haven't had a physics teacher in 40 years
  12. There it is. Obstruction on F4. F4 can't hinder R1's basepath if he's not the protected fielder fielding the ball.
  13. In my experience, I find it pretty difficult to tell if F2 had to shorten up on his follow through as to not slam his hand/arm/wrist into the batter's helmet/shoulder/bat if he's falling across the plate. If F2 couldn't get full extension on his follow though of the throw, I've got BI. Benefit of the doubt goes to the catcher when batter is across the plate.
  14. LOL. Not a ball boy..That would be my daughter. Home from school on "Spring break". (insert cruel joke here). I told her I pay for the car, you shovel it out. . The 2 car driveway on the other side of the house is my job..That was plenty for me.
  15. We're a 1/3rd of the way into our high school pre season. Still a foot+ snow on the ground and 20 degrees.