Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Richvee last won the day on November 13

Richvee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,747 Excellent

About Richvee

  • Birthday 09/30/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sussex County, NJ

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
  • Occupation
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    Baseball only. 95% 15+ travel, HS Varsity and adult
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

11,127 profile views
  1. Research Needed for Graduate School Project

    So the players have to take the device out of their shoe when they go on defense? I agree that I don' see this as a practical system. I applaud the forward thinking, but I'm skeptical.
  2. Research Needed for Graduate School Project

    I said that in the comments on the survey.
  3. Catch/injury AFL game

    Voluntary release is one way to judge if a catch has been made. In this play , 2 outs, R2. The guy caught the ball, slammed hard into the other outfielder. Didn't move after the collision. R2 and batter runner circled the bases. Outfielder stayed motionless , ball in glove. Confirmed by U1. Voluntary release or voluntary showing of the ball is not a prerequisite for a catch. Just indicators that can help us determine if a legal catch has been made. A ball secure in the glove a motionless body would also indicate a legal catch has been completed.
  4. Balk Question

    Good points. Once again, I stand corrected.
  5. Balk Question

    Seems BOTH umpires were in agreement on this call. That makes me start looking for reasons for the call. When your umpires said " very clear that it was the double tap of the ball. Said once the ball is out of the glove it can not re enter the glove for any reason". Your question to the calling umpire should have been, something like.. "did he do that before he started his motion to pitch?" Their answer would let you know if they called it correctly by what they saw, or if they did indeed mess up the rule.
  6. Balk Question

    I was thinking the same. Perhaps your umpire judged the hands came apart and then back together prior to any other movement to begin the pitching motion.
  7. interference??

    The retired runner would need to intentionally interfere with the throw or the fielders. Simply returning to the bench is not sufficient for interference.
  8. 2018 POE

    ....but he can bypass his mouth and adjust his cap...that doesn't simulate the same motion.
  9. Common BS Comments — Translations Included

    I found it quite ironic that the most bitching about the strike zone in this series came in a game where 25 runs were scored.
  10. All New equipment NEEDED!

    Sorry for the loss.That really sucks. For the price, the Diamond iX3 with upgraded pads(TW's are my choice) gives the best bang for the buck IMO. Don't even think about shin guards.Get the force 3. You won't regret it. I have the new NB plate shoes. They are VERY comfortable. The strange thing is, I find the mesh on the sides clean up easily, but the mesh under the pad, around the laces seems to be tougher to clean. At least the pad moves out of the way easy to get at the laces to clean around them. I'm with you. I wouldn't trade my Wilson Gold fora anything.
  11. Oh no Laz! Play the bounce!

    so....you guys don't like wearing a cup on the bases,huh???
  12. Live or Dead Ball???

    Or is he out for interfering with F2'soppertunity to catch the third strike? Note the very first statement.."The ball is dead immediately. That tells me, that any runner who tries to advance after the follow-through contact would be sent back....they tried to advance while the ball was dead.
  13. Live or Dead Ball???

    Fair point. I'd love to see 7.3.5 sit F be strike one or two.
  14. Live or Dead Ball???

    Here's my issue. I have no problem calling the batter out for follow-through INT if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through and the runner(s) were stealing. Where I have a problem is the interpretation by some that, if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through, and the runner(s), after seeing the ball get away, start running, we should call the batter out for follow-through INT and return the runner(s)......However, if the runners are asleep, and don't try to advance the batter hasn't hindered any play on a runner so no INT. Seems like this unfairly penalizes an offense for being aggressive seeing a ball get by the catcher. It's ridiculous to expect runners to think, "Hey,our batter hit that on the follow-through, I better not try to advance or they'll call him out" I don't see a clear and concise official interp on this in FED, so I'd be inclined to kill this and send the runners back, unless they were stealing on the pitch.
  15. Live or Dead Ball???

    That's what I'm saying.That's the only case play that talks about hitting a ball on the follow-through that was blocked first by F2. It doesn't really give us any guidance on what to do if it's not strike 3. Assume it's strike one and this happens. Is the batter still out even if the runner didn't take off until the ball was knocked away by the follow-through? Or is the batter only out for follow-through INT if the runner was stealing on the pitch? I'm not sure.. Double post deleted.