Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/12/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    On the left is Garret (my previous Jr. LL Umpire)/Legion umpire and on the right is our very own @HuskerUmp22 at the Wendlestedt Umpire School.
  2. 2 points
    No. Only RLI requires the obligatory throw from generally behind the BR to generally in the direction of 1B, but don't get me started.
  3. 2 points
    Wasn't the count 3-2 ? Swinging pirouette in front of F2 is strike 3. And in Fed, we get the runner too...end of inning.
  4. 1 point
    So, I get this text from my wife today of a picture of a t-shirt that she just purchased. Thought y'all might enjoy this.
  5. 1 point
    Darn it... now I have another person to keep an eye our for. This is now three years in a row! Think they will put is UE handle up on ESPN so we all know who he is?
  6. 1 point
    congrats @maineump that's awesome. I love watching LLWS
  7. 1 point
    You will love it! I went and thought it was awesome. I did the International Camp too.
  8. 1 point
    I'll keep my eyes peeled, but getting harder and harder to find any Reeboks now.
  9. 1 point
    I think these may be the old Spot-Bilt shoes. If I recall, Saucony (parent company of Spot-Bilt) was purchased by Payless and the Spot-Bilt brand was sunsetted. However, someone who worked at Spot-Bilt started up Pentagon. http://www.umpire.org/vb/archive/index.php?t-5951.html I still use a Spot-Bilts for the HS season. PIAA requires that shoes be all black. Figure I will use them until they wear out. Use the NB for summer ball.
  10. 1 point
    No, F2 might be hindered before he makes a throw. But he must be doing something recognizable as playing on the runner: we won't call this action batter INT if it happens on a wild pitch and F2 is chasing the ball to the backstop. Some folks confuse this rule with the RLI rule, possibly because both involve F2 and the batter. But RLI is an unusual kind of "interference" in several respects, notably in being hindrance of taking the throw at 1B. To take or receive a throw, there has to be a throw.
  11. 1 point
    FED 7-3-5 PENALTY (the sentence Rich quoted above) does seem to raise 3 possibilities for this play, in all 3 of which the batter is out for strike 3. The batter "prevented a double play": R1 (or whoever) is also out. The batter interfered but did not prevent a possible double play: R1 returns. The batter did not interfere: result of the play stands. In reality, #2 (the OP's call) is impossible. All real world cases will fall under #1 or #3. Batter INT, as a kind of INT, is built on the idea of hindrance. If we rule that the batter illegally hindered the defense, then they were making a play on a runner, and the batter prevented a possible double play. In that case, somebody must be called out for the INT. When the batter is out on strikes, that will be the runner. OTOH, if we rule that the batter did not illegally hinder the defense, then there is no INT and so no penalty, and no runners will return. I confess that I have no idea what FED is thinking with the idea of "interference without preventing a possible double play." It's not a big deal, as nothing requires us ever to employ option #2 above: in my games, all we'll ever see are #1 and #3.
  12. 1 point
    The "Shamu" reference was to the very first iteration of those shoes .....the ones pictures are the 2nd version w/ the stripes much more low-key
  13. 1 point
    @wolfe_man, even though I had reservations regarding the shine, I too will echo @tpatience. BEST plate shoes I've worn. In regards to the shine, I used to have a pair of patent leather plate shoes. That had me spoiled, period, the end. Seeing is that UA has upped their minimum buy to $129 for free shipping (I get it, when you're world class, you still need to make money), these shoes and any subsequent return of them is FREE shipping. I mean, think about that. That's my favorite dinner, my favorite adult beverage, etc........FREE.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    In FED only the umpire should judge if the interference prevented F2 from possibly throwing out the stealing runner. If the umpire judges F2 had no chance to throw out the runner, sans INT, the runner is returned, and no additional out is charged other than the strikeout of the batter. [Personal note] In actuality, for me, R1 better be almost standing on the next base when F2 catches the ball, or I'm getting the out. R1 and R2, double steal, the runner F2 was trying to make a play on is out, the other runner returns TOP. If the umpire cannot determine which runner F2 was going to play on before he was interfered with, the runner closest to home is out. 7-3-5 penalty..........If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible ­double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out *7.3.5 SITUATION D: With R1 on first base and R2 on second base, one out and two strikes on B4, R1 and R2 attempt a double steal. B4 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out either R1 or R2. RULING: If in the umpire's judgment F2 could have made a putout on the runner(s) but cannot determine where the play was going to be made because of the nature of the interference, the umpire will then call out the runner nearest home plate, which isR2.
  16. 1 point
    Whose feet? Fred Gwynne or Herman Munster? I would check an industrial safety shoe company for something that size.
  17. 1 point
    They are the best plate shoes I’ve ever worn.
  18. 1 point
  19. 0 points
    He found his way back...