Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

scrounge

Established Member
  • Content count

    2,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

scrounge last won the day on October 28 2017

scrounge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,139 Excellent

About scrounge

  • Birthday 01/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://huntingrangefinderreview.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    central Ohio

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    COBUA
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

11,273 profile views
  1. If only I was making this up

    What the hell was someone thinking on that one?!? So, either B or C alone, or all of them. And since C is obviously out, the only answer possible is B. Unless they actually think C is true - in which case y'all got bigger problems than a test!
  2. I don't get this interpretation

    I'd add that if the juggle or drop was clearly as a result of the tag, then totally on board with safe - after all, that's definitional in the rule 2 definition of a tag. But the vagueness of the interp above and lack of clear linkage to the tag troubles me.
  3. I don't get this interpretation

    Now I'm not a FED basher, quite the contrary. I like FED and think they get slammed unnecessarily for many things. But....just saw this little nugget in the 2018 interpretations just released....I don't like it and don't really get it. I get - and totally support - the idea of voluntary release and the football equivalent "process of the catch" concept. But why on earth are we seemingly applying that to an already possessed ball??? It doesn't seem like anything good can come of this if applied literally. SITUATION 14: A runner is caught in a rundown between home and third base. The third baseman is chasing the runner back to third and has clear possession of the ball when he reaches out and tags the runner. After the tag, the fielder stumbles and within a few steps falls to the ground causing the ball to come out of the glove. RULING: The runner is safe. The fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity. Falling down and dropping the ball results in a no tag on the runner. [2-24-4, 8-4-2h(2)]
  4. End of game situation

    The MLB/NCAA philosophy makes more sense to me than the murky/now-deleted/who knows FED one in that, to me, based on the definitions, those runners are not actually entitled to those bases but merely entitled to the right to advance without a play. If these knuckleheads are so stupid that they can't legally advance before making the third out - well, stupidity should have a price. I'm fine with them clarifying that awarded bases shall be completed - but it seems to me go against the general rule 9 timing play provision of no run scoring after the 3rd out or the definition of what an award is.
  5. NFHS Rules: Catcher's Helmet

    Did this discussion take more than 10 seconds? Can you see the catcher's ears with a skull cap? Yes? Then in what world would that be "full ear protection"? Come on, man...
  6. from what I read in the email today, it's just the same NFHS test that other states take.....i haven't done it yet but will in a couple weeks
  7. Sorry, I wasn't clear the first time...the two teams have a regularly scheduled game again next week, so likely that crew was already assigned to it for some time. Now, if they were to suddenly get the flu of course....I hear it's been bad this year.
  8. From what I read, the same teams are scheduled again next week, so they're just finishing it up then with the crew for that game.
  9. Infield Fly, Interterence, or Both?

    batter's already out and the runners aren't trying to advance - what on earth did he/she interfere with? If this is a correct ruling in softball, make this Reason #427 that I will not do that sport. ETA: read too quickly to see the ball was not clearly fair yet....
  10. Pass Interference?

    yea, I thought it was a cutoff, not surprised in the slightest that it drew a flag... Getting a kick out of all the conspiracy theorists and morons (apologize for the redundancy) who are foaming at the 6 to 1 penalty disparity in NE's favor, as evidence of the Grand NFL Patriots Conspiracy. Never mind that same NFL spent millions upon millions in and out of federal court to suspend the main Patriot, but that just goes to show how committed they are to the Conspiracy. Yes, people think this - but I digress... Of the 6 JAX penalties, two were automatics - a false start and a delay of game. Another was an uncontroversial illegal shift when there two in motion, as I recall. So we're down to 3 to 1, one obvious DPI when the DB grabbed the WR's neck, a personal foul/illegal hit that JAX's own coach said was a good call, and the cutoff DPI. 1 even slightly controversial penalty. Wow, some conspiracy.
  11. End of game situation

    That's my problem with the 2006 Interp (which is way beyond unreasonably old to be expected to be known IMO)....it says "therefore, since it's not force out, the runs score". Well, no #%@#, no one argued it was a force, so the 9.1.1 exceptions for force out negating runs wouldn't apply - but that's not the situation at hand. It's timing rules that should apply. The incorrect rationale in that interp point to how sloppily it was written - and maybe why it disappeared for 12 years till someone dug it up on stevetheump.com. I keep coming back to why timing rules don't apply to awarded advances - the only way those runs could score is if awarded bases are exempt from the timing rules that apply to any other 3rd out situation. Absent a specific guideline, exception, case, or even another interpretation that addresses timing rules rather than irrelevant force out rules, I can only logically go with the general 9.1.1 application of no runs score after a 3rd out. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but as I read it, both the 2006 interp and the BRD are simply wrong. And rules aside - if a batter-runner is this incredibly stupid to do this and create this exceedingly rare unicorn play? Stupid needs to have a price!
  12. End of game situation

    I don't know how to square the idea that the awarded runners score with 9.1.1's general rule of no runs score after the 3rd out is made. The passing of the runner is an immediate out, so how can any other runners score? Where is this exception for awarded bases? By definition, an award is simply the right to advance without risk of being put out - there is nothing saying that the award shall proceed no matter what.Why wouldn't it just be a normal timing play? Other cases hint at normal timing rules applying but none really address this directly. Where do we see anything, in any rule or case, that says that awarded bases have an exception from normal timing rules? Absent specific, controlling guidance saying the awarded bases score and are an exception to normal timing rules, I think the idea that they score is illogical and against the entire construct of other rules. I believe the BRD is simply wrong. I do agree that the force is removed - but so what? We're not relying on that or the 9.1.1 exceptions here - just the regular rule of runs must score before the 3rd out is made. It's an argument using an irrelevant rationale.
  13. Assigning Expectations

    Then they get exactly the product they deserve
  14. Gurriel's action and punishment

    I think they were trying to send a message without risking getting it caught up in the CBA. Ideally, Gurriel wouldn't have appealed - but he could, and that would have pushed it to next season anyway. And then, the standard for this in past was only a game or two, so 5 games is a significant increase. He'll still lose 5 games of salary, though the immediacy and impact of 1 series game would have been better.
×