Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

zm1283

Members
  • Content count

    1,874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

zm1283 last won the day on February 16 2015

zm1283 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

387 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Ozark, MO

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    CBUA, Mid-America Umpires
  1. How in the world can you change that call?

    Full disclosure: I'm also a Cubs fan. With that said, there is no way that any of them heard two sounds. Maddon says that was the only thing they went off of when changing the call. I will defend umpires as much as possible, but I have no idea how this could be defended.
  2. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    Which video? I can't find anywhere where they say it is now legal to redirect the runner with the leg of the catcher even after receiving the ball, which is what Contreras did and what was done in the video I referenced above.
  3. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    Makes sense. I just don't remember a video or interp from 2016 or 2017 when the new home plate rule has been in effect that reversed this interp from 2015, and I register with the NCAA every year. I was under the impression that this is still a good interp even though the collision/slide rule was altered. I would be interested to see something official from the NCAA though.
  4. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    I have seen all of these. There was a video shown in the last couple of years that showed a catcher field a throw with a runner trying to score and stick his left leg out into the runner's path and redirect him off his path to keep him from touching the plate. They talked about it and said it should be obstruction even though he was in the act of fielding a throw. I tried to find it but will keep looking. Edit: I don't know how to save NCAA videos off the Arbiter, but I can tell you which one to watch. Go back to videos from 4/5/15. There is one titled "Obstruction at HP New Interp" and it is 5:29 long.
  5. Hit em with the old 7.13(2)

    I disagree. The NCAA specifically said that catcher's who use body parts (Like the leg in this play) to "redirect" runners can be guilty of obstruction. I think you would have a very good case for obstruction on this play in an NCAA game since Contreras did not have to have his leg where it was to receive the throw.
  6. Backswing interference?

    I see what you're saying, and I agree if the catcher is trying to make a play on the B/R or a runner. But what play was the batter hindering in this case? I know a fielder doesn't have to have the ball to be interfered with, but Wieters didn't even know where the ball was in this case. I'm open to changing my mind, I just have a hard time with this one.
  7. Backswing interference?

    hbk is correct. People on Twitter were posting only the comment last night and not understanding that it has to be taken in context with the actual rule as well. If the batter isn't actually interfering with a play, you have nothing. If the ball was laying at Wieters' feet and the bat hit him preventing him from picking it up to retire a runner, you could have a very good case for interference.
  8. Weight Loss Group

    Yep. Drink water, eat better, and do strength training. Think compound exercises like squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press, etc. They build muscle and strength the best and are the most efficient if you're short on time. There are all kinds of programs out there. Starting Strength, Wendler 5/3/1, etc. Pick one to try and stick with it for six months to a year and you'll see results.
  9. I didn't edit anything that would change the fact that I didn't deny I was wrong. You paid me a flat price including shipping. Nowhere did I agree before the sale to refund you a part of that for return shipping in the case that they didn't fit. I gave you $4 of the $8 back that it cost you to send the pants back to me. Pretty fair if you ask me. Once again, if you're not interested in the pants, take a hike.
  10. Can you point out where I denied I was wrong? I should have just made you keep the pants that didn't fit you and kept your money if I had known you were such a douchebag.
  11. Like I said, if you don't want them, find something else to post about. I've never seen someone act like such a baby about pant size before.
  12. Hence the reason I fixed it in this post. With that said, they fit a size 34 waist up to a 36 when they stretch. I wear a 34 in every pant I own: Jeans, chinos, dress pants, basketball referee slacks, Honigs polywools old and new style, etc. and these pants fit me perfectly around the waist. It has widely been reported on here that you should order a size up to fit your actual size. I told you that I did not purposely mislead you. I mistakenly listed them as a 34 the first time (Even though they do fit a 34 waist) You say they didn't fit and I took them back and gave you your money back for them. If you don't want them then find something else to post about.
  13. Sold these to someone on the forum in February or March and they didn't fit him in the waist. I'll throw this out there again to see if anyone is interested. Here is the original post: Bought a pair of Davis-Fecheimer polywools in size 36. Had them hemmed by an alterations shop. Took the tag off to wear them the first time and they're too short. Haven't been worn on the field at all but I don't want to mess with having them fixed. They're 30" inseam and 41" outseam. They are a 36 waist but they will fit anything from a 34-36 since they have the adjustable stretch type waist band. $50 shipped.
  14. Honigs

    I ordered a shirt from them a couple of weeks ago and got it in 2-3 days with no problems.
×