Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/20/2020 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    My son makes double pay, but still could not "live" of it if he were flying solo. How? I give him my money as well. I tell him that my pay is being outside with my son while doing what we love. He knows the rules, is firm with his calls, and has gained an understanding of the games dynamics, as well as the respect of the coaches. I give him my pay, he is 17, a big kid, a good student, and I get to work with my boy. We only work on the weekends and have a great time. I am lucky in that we quiz each other all the time, and role-play situations. He is much more confident student, and i am a proud papa.
  2. 6 points
    I need to move there so I can move up the ranks quicker!
  3. 5 points
    From the 2016 BRD (section 110, p. 90) FED Official Interpretation: Hopkins: A batted ball hitting the pitcher’s plate and rebounding to foul ground between home and first or home and third without touching a fielder is a foul ball as it did not hit beyond the imaginary line in the infield. When I posted this interpretation earlier I thought that it was odd that the FED relied on it rather than having a rule as both the NCAA and OBR do. And why on earth was it a relatively recent interpretation--2003? It turns out that there is an explanation. According to the 2016 BRD the FED had that interpretation as black letter law in its rule book as rule 2-5-1 Play 1 prior to 1998. It seems that then current rules interpreter, Brad Rumble, felt that all the plays belonged in the Case Book. So, in a delicious irony all the plays were taken out of the rule book and put into the case book for 1998. All except one and that error was not fixed until 2003 when the new rules interpreter, B. Elliot Hopkins, issued this interpretation. Just to verify that the BRD story was correct I went to my storage locker and got out my really old books and sure as s*** the BRD was right. Here’s the text from rule 2-5-1 Play 1 in the 1994 NFHS rule book. B3 hits line drive or ground hit which strikes: (a) pitcher’s plate; or (b) second base. In either case, it rebounds to foul ground between home and third before touching anyone. RULING: (a) foul. (b) fair hit. I checked two other rule books—the 1980 and the 1977 and that same play was in those books as well. Apparently, the FED always had the same rule as OBR but it was decided to move the plays from the rule book to the case book for 1998 and it has stayed that way ever since.
  4. 3 points
    the players an managers.. "Ok Introductions, lineups, etc etc... And OH btw you see this scar got it in a recent knife fight and Im not in the mood tonight so dont be messing with me or my strike zone.. lets have a nice game shall we"
  5. 3 points
    The hammer mechanic is what has been taught at the pro schools for years. The reasoning is that if you standardize the mechanics then it is easier to evaluate everyone. Yes it keeps your eyes forward at all times. I personally hate it. But remember, do whatever the person signing your checks wants you to do.
  6. 3 points
    We met with Wilson in their Chicago HQ in June to discuss potential improvements. We solicited input, including from @MadMax, before we arrived. While the meeting was great, I know this was a major transition year for them on the catcher’s gear side of their line with the new NOCSAE certified CPs now required with high school catchers. I remain hopeful that the input provided will lead to progress in the future. We will keep pressing, and I will update UE members here if there is anything definitive.
  7. 2 points
  8. 2 points
    Except you gotta make chicken salad out of chicken $hit. What else are you going to do? You can absolutely sell a foul ball on a play like this. The initial ruling was HBP...upon further review we have a batted ball that also hits the batter while in the batter's box...which is also a dead ball...just a different outcome. It's not a do over....and I don't think you can get an out by rule either. Foul ball is the cleanest option. Your thoughts?
  9. 2 points
    This is from (or form a new book) a new book-- 2020 NFHS rule 8 SECTION 1 WHEN BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER ART. 1 . . . A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when: e. the catcher or any other defensive player obstructs him. The coach or captain of the team at bat, after being informed by the umpire-in-chief of the obstruction, shall indicate whether or not he elects to decline the obstruction penalty and accept the resulting play. Such election shall be made before the next pitch (legal or illegal), before the award of an intentional base on balls, or before the infielders leave the diamond. Obstruction of the batter is ignored if the batter- runner reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base. 1. Any runner attempting to advance (i.e., steal or squeeze) on a catcher’s obstruction of the batter shall be awarded the base he is attempting. If a runner is not attempting to advance on the catcher’s obstruction, he shall not be entitled to the next base, if not forced to advance because of the batter being awarded first base. If obstruction is enforced, all other runners on the play will return to base occupied at time of the pitch. The batter is awarded first base, if he did not reach base. Also see 2020 NFHS case book plays 8.1.1 Situation L and 8.3.1 Situation B.
  10. 2 points
    Did you all see the video from Ray @ Umplife on his FB page? Looks like he's going to be getting into the replacement pad business. He wants to offer pads similar to the Mag pads but with the reinforcement on the top pad as well as the bottom pad. I think it sounds great and am looking forward to the product!
  11. 2 points
    I'll join the fray! I've got 4 right now. A chopped/powdercoated Nike Ti, a chopped/powdercoated Diamond, a steel Wilson Dynalite, and just came into a Wilson Ti that I dont know what I want to do with. I am more than interested in dealing any of these away. I just need to get off my duff and do it.
  12. 2 points
    Gary Cederstrom has also retired
  13. 2 points
    well, as ornery as I have been since I woke up last Thursday morning, SWMBO is dead set on asking him to put back whatever he fixed.
  14. 2 points
    I prefer t-hooks. Better fitting as @Thunderheads stated. More like the original Douglas WV.
  15. 1 point
    I agree with you in principle, but the way I read the clause is that outs can never be called on a subsequent play. That is the plain English of it. Otherwise, there is no reason to include it. Keep in mind, we have had examples from this source where the plain English did not reflect the intent, so maybe it's something that needs to be reworded.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    I don't see the need for padding, as that plate should press against two plates that are padded already.
  18. 1 point
    In my experience, all jackets (and shirts) seem to tighten a little more around the waste each season.
  19. 1 point
    Let's start with them working anything over 12u travel ball. Maybe a low level varsity game in the city of their choice. I mean, I'VE never worked anything higher than D3. And I'm totally good with this ejection.
  20. 1 point
    The one on the right is legal.
  21. 1 point
    Guys, as @Richvee pointed out, it's more to do with standardization than it is for blatant safety. Consider that NOCSAE isn't actually an "independent third party". Instead, it's a consortium comprised of representatives from the manufacturers as well as these institutions: American Academy of Pediatrics American College of Sports Medicine American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Athletic Equipment Managers Association National Athletic Equipment Reconditioners Association National Athletic Trainers' Association Sporting and Fitness Industry Association American Football Coaches Association American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine Additionally, there are representatives from the NCAA and NFHS included as non-voting liaisons. Because the NFHS is a government entity (ie. public), they cannot exclude a company from selling baseballs (or other equipment) that meets their published specifications. If the specs call for a 9-in. / 5 oz. baseball with a cork & rubber core and a leather casing, they can't exclude a baseball company that meets those specifications, regardless of how that baseball is constructed internally. So, as long as the baseballs meet those specs, a company can label the baseball as compliant with the NFHS spec, because the NFHS "logo" or "mark" is a publicly recognized mark. When a case of liability is reviewed, and that baseball is "entered into evidence", questions will be raised as to: Who certified that baseball? Why is that baseball regarded as certified? What methods are in place to determine compliance? Who determined the standards to which that baseball had to meet? The NFHS cannot be the sole answer to those questions. However, because NOCSAE is organized as a Registered Entity (guys like @lawump would know the formal term), and comprised of those member organizations and institutions, it can and must be the answer to those questions. In order to obtain a manifest of specifications, right down to the minutiae and smallest detail, you must be a member of, or at least be applying to, one of those listed consortium members. You must be a NOCSAE -recognized manufacturer to be a part of the group. And, most importantly, you have to divulge (at least with NOCSAE) the manufacturing and testing processes you are in compliance with when producing those baseballs. Then, and only then, are you "licensed" to place the NOCSAE seal on the baseball. There's a reason we haven't seen the NOCSAE baseball logo/mark/seal online... because NOCSAE doesn't want to make it easy for some shady outfit to "lift it" and place it on baseballs outside of their approved domain! Certainly, if you read the fine print on the NOCSAE web documents regarding this act, there are some very, very stiff penalties for recreating and/or placing the NOCSAE seal upon gear outside of their specified approval list. It can't completely be a "safety thing". There's no discussion or language about NOCSAE seal being present on scrimmage and practice baseballs, for example. Amateur players are just as likely to get hurt in practice or in the batting cage as they are during an actual, sanctioned varsity game. I have a hunch, too, that in JV/Freshman/Unsanctioned games, it's not really going to matter whether or not these baseballs have the NOCSAE seal (it's a _hunch_, I have no knowledge as to its certainty or not). But for sanctioned Varsity games, adherent to the standards of the NFHS (and/or the State in which the contest is being played), have to have NOCSAE -certified baseballs. Safety aside, this is likely to prevent a coach or AD from "skimping" and getting a few dozen boxes of BusterCo Baseballs on the cheap from Rakuten, Alibaba or Amazon, direct from China, wherein out of a box of 12, maybe 2 or 3 look the same. Here are some examples, all available today from a... discount online retailer / wholesaler: Here, I'm going to pick on Diamond a little bit... Can you spot the difference? Both are "approved" for NFHS High School play (last year), are they not? So why are the D1-HS's on the left $71 / dozen, while the DOL-1-HS on the right are $45 / dozen?? Yeah, I can see why somebody wanted needed these to be standardized, especially when everyone is kerfluffle about "the ball being juiced" in MLB.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    I hate it, but then I realize it will be in the 70's with nothing but sunshine and I'm ok.
  24. 1 point
    I have not tried the GD plate pants. I just go by the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. The Smitty's have been great for me performance-wise in extreme heat and humidity (110+ degree heat indexes w/ high humidity) and the tapering is not an issue in plate pants like base versions.
  25. 1 point
    This question of interpretation is not unique to NCAA, so I feel comfortable (as a NCAA non-expert) answering. No. Notice that "Note 1" specifies "that act alone." Imagine the same play but the RH batter's dugout is on the 3B side. He walks away from the plate as F2 throws wild over F4's head. F2 wants batter INT because the batter's action was confusing and hindered him. That's not INT because the batter didn't hinder F2. He merely walked away, and that act alone was no hindrance (or we would usually rule so). In the OP, the (retired) batter walked in front of F2 playing on R2. INT is far more likely here, and not because the batter was heading to the dugout, but because he got in the way (if he did). The OP says that the umpire ruled no hindrance. Fine, then don't call INT: it's never "automatic." But the benefit of any doubt goes to the defense here.
  26. 1 point
    Yeah, I figured that out, LOL. I did that out of respect for your post. Plus, conversations like this don't belong here, so I'm helping keep the proper conversations located in the correct place (if that makes sense)
  27. 1 point
    Young-Ump's reply still applies:
  28. 1 point
    Thanks for the kind words Kev. The best part of this question is, it's #1 on the test. Twice I opened the test, read this, and closed it.
  29. 1 point
    Ewww. Oh -- maybe that's not what you meant.
  30. 1 point
    Presenting the UEFL Profile of MLB Umpire John Tumpane. Name: John Francis Tumpane Pronunciation Guide: JAWN Tum-PAYN Date of Birth: May 4, 1983 Place of Birth: Evergreen Park, Illinois MiLB Leagues Worked: Gulf Coast, New York-Penn, South Atlantic, Florida State, Eastern, International, Pacific... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] View the full article
  31. 1 point
    Sorry but the rake as some call it or the extended throat guard as I do is not to accommodate the "billow pad." It was angled to accommodate an additional 4" or 6" throat guard attachment.
  32. 1 point
    You want the specs linked on that page. That's as far as I care to dive, but there's more behind the adoption of the standards listed in this document (they're not arbitrary).
  33. 1 point
    I can explain that. The interpreters received an early draft of the bulletin that had the "play and report" guidance. After that, Dan changed his mind, perhaps for consistency with surrounding states, perhaps with guidance from OHSAA legal counsel, perhaps just whimsically. Who knows. But when they built the online presentation, the guidance had changed to "do not play." That's going to be the bottom line.
  34. 1 point
    This is going to be separate from rookie training, but we are holding a "New Member Orientation" that will include all new members, including rookies and transfers. First time we're doing something like this so I'm interested to see how it works out.
  35. 1 point
    Dana told us that yesterday at umpire school
  36. 1 point
  37. 1 point
    WHOA WHOA WHOA ..... you missed something in my post! I know it's "the cool factor" but I just don't understand this being the holy grail: This has the same plates as a Gold (basically) and moreso, the Champion (w/ velcro back quite a few years) ....
  38. 1 point
    @acpar72 i have a long way to go before that hopefully!
  39. 1 point
    Over the past few months I have read through a ton of topics (hey, it's the off season!) in the ATU, Mechanics, and Situations forums on this site; just so I can grow in my knowledge of umpiring. I have learned many valuable things, and I for one have benefited from @Senor Azul's extensive and thorough rules posts. I appreciate the time you take to research and write them. Please keep the posts coming.
  40. 1 point
    No WM, I had it done just before TW stopped doing it.
  41. 1 point
    Side view showing rake and low profile.
  42. 1 point
    I ordered a mask this Summer. I texted Dan before placing the order and got nothing....for like a couple weeks. Follow up text was replied to that day. Placed my order and the mask was at my door in like 3 days. I read on here that someone else had suggested this method of correspondence with Dan. It worked for me. Hope you have good luck on this order!
  43. 1 point
    That is their "signature" look.
  44. 1 point
    Why apologies? NCAA hasn't changed anything. My response was to @Forest Ump to reinforce why FED is more onerous than NCAA regarding the DH. But I like your question as to "why" for multiple times. No need. In my neck of the woods when we get a 9 man lineup we look it over and confirm with the coach one time: "straight nine?" That one question/observation should suffice for the new change also.
  45. 1 point
    We should place other runners as if there was no obstruction. It's a bunt with R1. Had there been no obstruction, BR is out, or beats out the play at 1B...Of course R1 rounds 2nd. Every runner would round second. If he rounds second, and F4 has the ball at 1B, what are the chances he advances to 3rd? It may be the answer they want, but I don't agree given the info we have. R1 would need to be well on his way to 3B at the time of the obstruction, and, unless he was running on the pitch, is highly unlikely.
  46. 1 point
    Slimmer couch cushion?
  47. 1 point
    He became a runner. He was not put out. Gotta go somewhere. Put the sub on 1B.
  48. 1 point
    Ditto here. I have the Force3 shins and am more than happy with the straps on there.
  49. 1 point
    You can't find it. That's why it's legal.
  50. 0 points

  • Create New...