All Activity

Staying the way of the batted ball and getting hit by it definitely is INT. I object to NFHS adding that statement as it applies to vacating a base for a fielder. Standing still, as long as it is not in the path of the ball is reasonable.

I'll take another approach. F5 was not moving with the urgency of making a play, meaning "no potential out." No play/potential out = no potential interference. Maybe I am taking that approach because of a long-standing opinion of mine: "unintentional interference" that creates a play for the offense is preventing the defense from ending the play, and should be treated as such. If you want to rule no interference on this and allow it to stand, then do NOT allow it to extend the play or create a new play (R2 scoring and BR advancing to second).

I still do not understand why Marmol is so loved in St. Louis.

Looks like there was even a thread here! I see some improvements I would make, but that is the concept.

Robin Williams' best movie, IMHO. And no offense taken. If I can think harshly about the Reebok Magistrates, you can think harshly about those Mizunos.

Mizuno Japan beat you to it, TMiB.

Maybe I'm missing something. I am saying from 60 feet and 6 inches away, with him standing on a hill, if he looks like he is touching, he is touching as far as I am concerned. I'm making that call. I'm willing to get with my partner afterwards, but I'm not parsing whether he was touching it on a sub-atomic level.

This has been my exact thought process. The goal shouldn't be to design a shoe, but to design the protection for the shoe.

Why do I care about advantage? Does it say he can do this as long as it is not an advantage? (Not personal, but I loathe this line of thinking in umpires.) But sure, I will play along with your line of logic of "advantage." Coach in the press box is calling/sending information down to him. Now you have prohibited electronic communication. If he/she is using it for anything other than scorekeeping, it is a prohibited device. That is what comes to my mind. My bigger concern is safety. Yes, I have prevented/chastised coaches in the coach's boxes from taking calls and texting. (Not run them from the game, but instructed them to stop or come back when they are done.) I have made coaches take off their legal communication ear piece (legal in the dugout on defense, not legal on offense in the coach's box).

I recently took part in one of the largest democratic annual meetings in the country. In our caucus, there was serious misunderstanding of "not adopting a position" (we are choosing to remain neutral) and "not having reached a position" (we were unable to reach a majority or did not even discuss the matter). The chair used "the body has no position" in all contexts.

Unless the intent is to stay in the way, then you are intentionally interfering. I am curious which part you object to. It specifically says the runner does not have to leave the base, but does have to give the fielder opportunity to make the play. That means staying in the way could be interference. I will agree simply "not moving" might not be interference, but it most definitely might be. There is additional context that is needed. It is like "continuing to run." The incident itself may or may not be interference, but only the obtuse readings conclude it can never be interference.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

Let's look at it this way: What possible advantage can a coach gain by scrolling, texting and answering a call? Nothing comes to my mind. How about yours?

Easy. Plate shoes. This is the one piece of equipment that should, and needs, to completely alter its convention. They are a – pardon the obvious pun – walking contradiction. As a company, you can only put so many resources into these shoes, make 'em like tanks (which they do), only for them to invariably wear out in some way. Whether that be internally, the sole / traction diminishes, or they get stepped on and damaged. Then you have the wildly broad range of size combinations – from as small as 5 (I'll never forget ya @Tksjewelry !) all the way to 16-17, and then from D to 4E in width! ... and then there's preferences on low, mid, or hi-top!! ... and then there are those cantankerous, stodgy users who want demand all-black! (How in the heck are you supposed to promote athleticism and advertise your company on an all-black shoe??!!) It is a daunting design challenge. Certainly, with the latitude of "money no object or barrier", something may one day emerge as a solution. If I was to undertake this one, I'd separate the protective components from the shoe itself. Let shoe manufacturers (continue to) make shoes in the variety of sizes, widths, and styles – and white embellishments!! – like they're fully capable of doing, and then develop a toe cap and tarsal plate that is durable, protective, (relatively) easy to install, and secure enough to be used by a variety of umpires, at a variety of levels, for both baseball and softball. Surely, with all of the resources we now have available to us, we can come up with something more refined and adaptable than heavy leather shoe-boots, in a restrictive array of sizes, at an exorbitant price point.

And Ramos got absolutely drilled directly in the middle of his mask by a foul ball in today’s Cleveland/Minnesota game - seemed perfectly fine and continued.

You would know if you were aware of how he engaged in the set and the windup, ie: his mannerisms.

Rich can speak for himself obviously but I find the Incrediware comfortable to wear for prolonger periods of time. They are fabric and not neoprene so breath and they aren't overly tight. Just comfortable to wear all day. They won't limit motion or provide as much support as neoprene sleeves (of which there are varying levels of braces and weight). I think they are good for lingering knee issues in a non-high activity level setting.

Not moving is not intentional INT unless you are dealing with NFHS umpires who take to heart Caseplay H.4.2 - H which I don't.

Curious to know more about what it is you like about these? My wife fell at the beginning of the summer (on vacation) and cracked the top of her tibia. She is scheduled to have the range limiter removed in a few weeks, but they recommended continuing to wear the brace. She was asking about when she goes back to work (she is an OR nurse and is on her feet and moving a lot), and they said she could still wear it for support and stability. It is kind of bulky though. Wondering if this may be an option.

Did EVERYBODY really know the pitcher was not touching the plate? There are far more fields than not that it is difficult to impossible to tell. How many fields do you work where there isn't even a real pitcher's plate, just a painted area on thee turf? If you are going to give the appearance of being there, I am going to assume you are there. I am not going to play the game of "But he was really 1/2 inch away." Granted, the PU's response does not help this case. Disclaimer: I cannot see the photo linked by the OP.

This is one of those "ick" plays where we have to hold our nose and make the call. It feels wrong because, as Max pointed out, the fielder is literally running up the BR's backside. How is the BR supposed to avoid a fielder that she cannot even see? It is not something that the batter had any real control over. Should we instruct fast catchers to simply run up the slow BR's ass when going out for a bunt? This will cause more (and more severe) injuries than throwing during RLI. It also feels wrong because of inconsistencies (across codes and within codes) in language and application when it comes to intent. If Manny Machado can intentionally run into the most likely throwing lane that is behind him, how can we penalize a batter who is being run over from behind? Nonetheless, I do agree, the rules support the interference call. I just don't like it.

My skull cap. I use the AS Skully--and it is by and large sufficient for the task--but I think it could be improved in a few ways (looks, padding location).

That is some sort of Zen level or hash pipe level of thinking, my friend. "Inaction is an action" (agreed though on possible "Hey man, is that Freedom Rock?" tones)

I feel like shins could get lighter and less bulky if money were no object - but I expect it'd be like $1,000+ and they wouldn't last too long.

That is some sort of Zen level or hash pipe level of thinking, my friend.