Replacematt

I don't get icked out by much, but I've seen some really bad ones caused by camo paint on still-hormonal 18-23-year-olds.

The first is a sportsmanship issue, not an eye-black issue. The second is nothing.

Why?

I'm going to say it's pedantic, not with the intent of piling on, but to point out that if I find it pedantic, well...

Yep. You can't have interference without actual interference.

I could wear the Magistrates comfortably but not the NB. I would say these are a little tighter than the former.

I have worn these for years. I'll take a pic of how I lace them--you'll likely find them even more comfortable with the method I use, especially if you have a wider toe.

Given the title, I thought this was going to go in a different direction.

So, the Wendlestedt RIM (in the definition section of interference) defines it as an act that hinders or prevents the batter from hitting the pitch. Thus, my take on it--if the batter hit the pitch with no hindrance, it doesn't meet that definition. Likewise, if a batter does something that affects a catcher after their throw, it's not BI, as the play wasn't hindered.

I probably use the word "F*#K" more. Gotta relate to your audience. Pathos, and all that.

I think there's a gap in the rules here as to if it's BI or not, but this is definitely not CI. The batter has already struck the ball and there's nothing that can hinder their attempt after that point.

You won't find your interpretation in the casebook because it isn't how this is officiated and is an example of overthinking. What would have happened absent the obstruction? That's the only question you need to answer.

I have no problem with saying that I replaced my 1999 Carlucci with a 2007 Platinum (which was later replaced by a Douglas, then a Cobalt...) Each was more protective than the one it replaced.

It's a +POS BB204.

This is not a play where you can get help regarding OBS.

That's what happens when you call balks.

We're not talking about that.

It wouldn't.

Yes, unless there's some ground rule to the contrary.

PU=plate umpire. U1=umpire who is in the vicinity of 1B with no one on. In an FPSR situation, U1 has primary responsibility. PU has responsibility once the infielder throws. U1 can get this call at any time they are watching the play; PU should defer their judgment until there's a throw. In any case, it will be U1 having the better look if there are conflicting judgments, thus the reason PU needs to hold off.

Under what rule do you have INT?

FOAF isn't confirmation, especially when the assertion within would not be provable even from the primary source.

The only information we have is that it didn't have the appropriate sticker. It's a very generous assumption that bat was present for testing, as shown by your own commentary.

Regarding the Skechers... Absolutely F*#King amazingly comfortable. My first time out with them was working U3/U1 on a 7/9 DH and I felt like I could do it again. I cannot express how good they feel. The downside is that the spikes are not removable. This resulted in having to get used to some extra traction moving forward and backwards, limiting the ability to twist on them. I give them a perfect 5 out of 7.