zm1283

I started umpiring about 12 years ago and was taught that you take sunglasses off for the plate meeting, but otherwise they can stay on. The longer I go, the less I hear stuff like that, but I still leave them off at the plate meeting. Honestly I don't think coaches care one bit. That is about #300 on the list of things they're thinking about right before a game starts.

Surprised this is deemed legal since it seems it is an extension on the home plate side.

I missed three. One was the question about how many warmup throws a defensive player substitute other than the pitcher gets. I had no idea there was a limit for that. I have always given them as many as they need within reason.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.