Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez took issue with MLB umpires ("Awful!") for a missed HR call (correctly overturned via Replay Review) despite Keith himself having missed the same call during his first (and second) viewing of the play. With the bases loaded during Friday's Mets-Royals game, 1B... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] View the full article
  2. 2 points
    Fellow Arbiters, thank you for the interest. I was a bit surprised at the number of responses. However, seeing that @acpar72 was the first to respond, I am obliged to honor his trade. @Thunderheads, please lock it up.
  3. 1 point
    @acpar72, I'd agree with you, but I held (at least) one in my hand. It was in my hand. I tried it on, twisted it around, tossed it up in the air. It wasn't Titanium – the wire gauges weren't right and the finish wasn't the smooth, natural cleanliness of titanium. It was almost fuzzy or speckle-y, more like I've seen with... anodizing. And what gets anodized? Aluminum. Besides that, the welds were messier. Because of Titanium's inherit challenges in being welded, the welds themselves are typically done by a robot or a master welder on a precision jig. These welds were messier, akin to welds I've seen on low-end or limited-run (read: custom) aluminum bicycles. The mask was memorably light. And, examining it very carefully, it didn't appear hollow. Titanium and aluminum mask wires can afford to be solid. I'll admit, there is a hollow steel one out there that Adidas is circulating. Its tubes are narrower than the previous Nike hollow steel version, but the walls are thicker (you notice this during a chop job). I actually owned one of these, and I fervently believe that this is more survivable than the Nike predecessor, but it cannot be the only one that Adidas markets. I've seen Titanal first-hand from my job at REI, wherein I was selling and servicing alpine gear and tents.
  4. 1 point
    Why would you only call him out on his second, fourth, and sixth at bats?
  5. 1 point
    I second this. I don’t want to sell a mask under false pretenses but this could help people know what to look for as buyers.
  6. 1 point
    Don't legislate from the bench. Just call a ball or strike as the case may be, with all benefit of the doubt going to the pitcher for the top of the zone.
  7. 1 point
    We should publish and sticky a post in the Umpire Equipment board that lists the U-E confirmed weights of the Icon models, and perhaps some other select offerings (Wilson Titanium, Wilson Aluminum, All-Star FM4000MAG, Champro Rampage, etc). At the very least, we need the weights of the frames for the: Nike Titanium Icon Nike Hollow Steel Icon (w/ vinyl dip) Adidas Titanal Icon Adidas / Reebok Hollow-Steel Icon
  8. 1 point
    1. See the red part. It's not retired runner interference if the defense didn't have a play on another runner. 2. See the blue part. R3 never scored. When interference occurs, the ball is immediately dead (even though in this instance, we do not call time until after the fair/foul status of the ball is determined). The "play" they made on R3 all happened when the ball was already dead, and that "play" would have never been attempted if the fielder not been prevented from making the catch because of the interference. BTW, I am answering for baseball. I have no clue on softball rules.
  9. 1 point
    I am interested in the shovel. I’ll send you a pm.
  10. 1 point
    I was going to post something similar. I'm not getting two outs here. Keep in mind that when a retired runner "interferes," he must actually hinder the defense from playing on another runner. That did not happen here. The batter-runner, who was out on the IFF, hindered the fielder (maybe) from catching the ball. However, there was no other play to be made. But let's say R3 was running on the crack of the bat and the defense might have been able to put her out on appeal for leaving early, then we could get another out here. As is, only the BR is out and the play at home never happened.
  11. 1 point
    I also say shame on the manager for not coming out to question the call
  12. 1 point
    I’m not buying into getting an out on R3. Assuming you call INT, ( which I disagree with , but is debatable) the ball is dead the moment of the INT. Therefore, there’s no way the interference by the BR ( or retired runner, whatever you want to call her) hindered a play on R3 because, the ball is dead and there is no play on another runner. So if INT is indeed called here, the ball is dead immediately the interference is on the BR for hindering R3’s ability to catch the pop up. Batter is out, ball is dead, fair foul is irrelevant and all runners return TOP.
  13. 1 point
    At least in little league rule book 2019, it is up to the local league to adopt the rule. So you have to ask the local league. Rule 9 The Umpire (d) "note", states that a player, coach, etc. "Shall be ejected" for the stealing and relaying of signs to alert the batter of pitch selection and/ or location is unsportsmanlike behavior... The operative words are " pitch selection" and "location". This means the position of the catcher. If adopted, then the umpire can apply. I tell my local league ALL THE TIME, that if you do not follow a single rule, then ALL rules are no good and cannot be followed. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
  14. 1 point
    1 Mississippi ... 2 Mississippi ... 3 Mississippi ...
  15. 1 point
    Heck, I don't even consider noting fastball vs. off-speed as sign stealing. That's just decrypting. The offense's poor OPSEC is not the umpire's problem. "Stealing" would be sneaking into the dugout and absconding with their code book. I don't expect that interpretation survives a protest, but there ya go.

  • Create New...