beerguy55

Agreed. A glove can be judged to be distracting regardless of its coloring and design. A white glove must be removed, even if the umpire judges it is not distracting.

Well, the glove pictured above has the American Flag on it...so that alone would make it illegal I guess. Any ball glove with the MLB logo on it would be illegal.

Christ - these associations are expecting amateur coaches to know what many of their own umps don't. This is only appropriate for pro and perhaps NCAA levels where the coaches are actually paid...nothing below that.

Not your job to decide baseball strategy. Just be careful how far you determine what is "obvious". In slightly different plays where there is a decision to keep a run and accept an out to some it's "obvious" to take the run and accept the out. Don't assume the coach will take the run and accept the out...some will, some won't. Most of the time it's "wrong" to trade the run for the out.

"I wonder if it will be friends with me?" said the sperm whale.

The answer is 12, sir

I agree completely. The summer league team I mention above, the Okotoks Dawgs has a rabid following...I go to a couple of games every summer because it's basically the only ball I get around here...I'll go to Toronto or Seattle once in a while, but certainly not once or twice a year. Having said that, in the 90s the Calgary Cannons were the Mariners farm team. I'd make it to at least a few games every summer, and they too had their rabid following. I saw some young stars, including Bret Boone and some guy named Alex Rodriguez. But they didn't make me a Mariners fan in any way (Expos to this day - they'll never disappoint me again). Hell, I even saw them play AGAINST Eddie Murray when he was with the Albuquerque Dukes in 97. If anyone turned me into a Mariners...admirer...it was the combo of Griffey and Randy Johnson, the former Expo. Went to a Mariners game for a pitching duel between Cole Hamels and Felix Hernandez...it was 7-5 after the third.

I think it's two different discussions...and not even sure if either are applicable. Is MiLB an avenue for MLB to expand its brand? Is an MiLB team an avenue for its affiliated MLB to expand ITS brand? I'm not sure either are true, any more than I think the enormous popularity of high school football in Texas and Pennsylvania has anything to do with the NFL. You either like baseball or not, and what quality of baseball are you going to want to see in your area. Up here we have a couple of summer leagues that are designed for NCAA students to be able to play ball while out of school. And those teams have their following in those towns. (or cities) It's not high quality pro ball...but it's also a helluva lot better than HS or LL. So, MiLB was contracted to save money...and maybe even to reduce some watering down of the product...but it also means several hundred players need to find other options to play non-MLB ball (or get the hint and retire). Does this open the door for a competing non-affiliated league?? Is baseball simply something people want to see anywhere they can - and provided it's of some reasonable quality, they'll take any kind of baseball they can if they don't have access to MLB? I think so.

That's interesting - OJ Simpson went to prison for doing almost the exact same thing (except, I guess, he and his thugs brought guns)

One I wished I'd seen was The Folksmen opening for Spinal Tap.

Isn't that the same thing?

As my friend's grandfather would say about a rare steak - "You know, a good vet could revive this."

oh gawd, that's worse. You as PU want to really determine that for the last 45 feet B/R kept his right foot right of the line and left foot left of the line? Good luck. Same result. Defense is unhappy when it's uncalled, offense is unhappy when it is. For an entirely different, and more complicated, judgment call. The argument will be simply be about whether not he straddled the line, vs whether or not he was in the running lane (or whether or not he impeded the catch). Bottom line, for the other 315 feet around the bases, in either direction, the runner makes his own path, by rule....and must INTENTIONALLY interfere with a throw to be penalized, by rule. Apply the same standard to that other 45 feet.

No - just two out. He simply saying that, in OBR, instead of the runner who interfered with the foul ball it's (effectively) the batter who makes the third out. A DP can occur in an IFF - the batter is out because of the IFF (if fair)...if the runner interferes with a fielder he's out too (no?)...in that scenario it's moot...the batter is out so of course their at bat is over. The scenario in question is about a foul ball, where the batter wouldn't be out due to IFF.

I suspect it's another case of some rule maker outsmarting himself. I can't see any logical reason to punish the batter - he did nothing wrong, and there's no reason to revoke him of a fresh at bat...this is unlike batter INT on R3 stealing, where R3 is out with less than two outs, and batter is out if the third out...it's the batter who caused the infraction there (and you're calling R3 out with 0/1 out to remove any second or third chances of R3 scoring - for the third out, you're revoking batter's right to a fresh at bat...for something HE did). The only thing I can think of is someone, using poor logic, decided those two outcomes needed to be consistent. The only time batter should be out here if he's the one who interfered with the catch in foul territory.

Very nice!!

I'm all over the map...2022 saw Alanis (July) and Bryan Adams (November). 2024 I'm seeing Journey (with Toto), Pink and Bruce Springsteen. My top concerts for me are Paul McCartney at Skydome (now Rogers Centre) in 1989, and then again in 2014 at Grizzly Stadium in Missoula, MT. And then G'N'R at The Gorge in Washington, 2017. I'd watch almost any act at The Gorge - my favorite venue I've experienced. Def Leppard x3, Poison, Tesla, Nightranger, Trooper, Gowan, Anvil, Anthrax, John Mellancamp, Elton John, The Who, Imagine Dragons, Little Big Town, Joan Jett, KISS, The Cult...and then Canadian acts you've probably never heard of (Colin James, Honeymoon Suite, Loverboy, April Wine, Kim Mitchell, Tragically Hip, Platinum Blonde, etc, etc)

Widening the running lane isn't going to solve anything. The same fundamental issue will remain - the offense is pissed off when it is called, the defense is pissed off when it isn't. I have yet to see a called, or uncalled, RLI scenario, at any level, that did not lead to arguments. Whether they're right or not is beside the point. It's a piss poor rule that just creates bad will. The rule is unnecessary and causes more problems than it solves. And the last 45 feet between home and first is treated completely differently than any other location on the basepaths...in how/whether a runner interferes (intentionally) with a throw...vs unintentionally with a catch. Kill the rule.

That was the point of the video in my post - regardless of whether something exists in a book or not, we seem to know what to do.

5.09(a)(8) speaks of the actions of a batter after a ball has been hit or bunted. Regardless, there does seem to be a shift in the standard of when a batter becomes a runner, or even batter-runner, and that 'batter" infractions (like 7.3.x) seem to apply even though they are no longer a batter - it would appear that for the purposes of these rulings the batter is still a "batter" until shortly after he gets rid of his bat. More specifically, the obligations of a batter extend to the first few seconds after he becomes a runner, where he is apparently in limbo. I have no problem with the principle/spirit of the ruling...the letter of it is problematic (what else is new).

Once he gets ball four he's no longer a batter, he's a runner. I suspect in OBR this would be nothing? OBR requires interference with a thrown ball, by a runner, to be intentional to declare the runner out. 5.09(b)(3) If he threw his bat on ball three (thinking it's ball four) and interfered with the throw he would still be a batter, and be out under 6.03(a)(3)...I think. Having said that, the case play in FED above seems to consider the player still a "batter" for the purposes of that ruling (which is why it's under 7.3.5, and not 8.4.1)...so perhaps OBR has taken the same interpretation. Nothing under 8.4.1 (a batter-runner is out when) supports this, so I can only conclude FED considers him still a batter, in spite of 8.1.1(3)

Specifically SLOW PITCH softball can be different. As stated above, many (not all) slow pitch leagues and tournaments don't require the batter to round the bases when hitting the ball out of the park. In fact, they don't want it. It's a time saver, and it removes any possible notion of gloating and other crap while he's rounding the bases. I have never seen this applied in fast pitch softball. However, the pitch in the video is odd...it's not windmill, it's not even half windup, but doesn't look like it has any arc either.

Where do the rules ANYWHERE mention a "towering" fly ball? The word "towering" appears nowhere in OBR. OBR defines a FLY BALL and a LINE DRIVE...and the rule you cite only mentions a fly ball being caught resulting in an out. No rule specifically says a line drive caught is an out...but we've ignored that problem for ~150 years. It's all moot though - I don't see anything in OBR that defines a "batted ball". But we somehow know that too.

My reply was more about extra innings in general...as much as you and I enjoy them from a game appreciation perspective, there are some people that just want to go home. (and some of them are umpires) In context, the decision about ghost runners is more about saving pitchers than time....but time is a happy benefit....for those who just want to go home.

The tournament volunteers who want to go home don't like extra innings. But really, the time saving from the runner on second is just a side benefit. This is about saving arms. That's why they did it in MLB, and I see no reason not to do it in any amateur level of ball.