Leaderboard

I had this happen during a college game. Home team pulled the tarp late, standing water in foul territory (the entire length of the 3rd base line wrapping around home plate) and in the outfield (the entire length from first base to 2nd base just beyond the dirt), along with frozen ground that was thawing was going to make it that we simply could not safely play on this surface that day. Visiting team (in the 3rd base dugout and had to walk through the water) was adamant that they were not going to play. Home team was just as adamant that they were. I got a phone call from my coordinator, who received a call from the conference commissioner, and was told to go check the field condition. Home HC was saying that we were going to play... I asked him to bring his AD down to the field. I walked the AD around and pulled out the line "Our number 1 priority is the health and welfare of the student-athlete." I also told him that if they insisted on starting the game, the moment that someone slipped anywhere on the field, we were going to pull them and we would not be playing anymore. He made the decision to kill it for the day.

Just arrived via UPS today: the limited edition “Kuta.” Same plates as the Enduro, with a different pad and color way. Same great quality coming from Derek and his team. Looking forward to strapping it on in 4 weeks!

The DX Kuta is a prototype we were field testing in 2025. The DX was simply a carrier for Covalta which is our chemically cross-linked closed cell foam to get some additional real world testing. The foam itself is engineered to be extremely good when dealing with high speed, localized impacts. It is already used in some pad cores and in the DX Mk2 as well in a limited role. The feedback was very strong but Covalta is being considered for different product lines so this is a limited edition product, we only produced 60 pieces. The Kuta itself weighs about 18% less then the DX Enduro with the same thickness. If anyone is interested in picking one up early, please contact me. What is remaining is likely to go on sale in mid-February. @blue32 stand by on the shins. We're working through a number of prototypes at the moment.

Jim, those plays specify what is defined as a meeting and what is not. You blew right past 2.10.3-A This is defined as a meeting. If the catcher gets crossed up after such a meeting, he cannot meet again with the pitcher. Question 87 on the Rules Study Guide asks this very question: 87. In the fifth inning, F1 allows three straight hits to begin the inning. F6 asks for time to go to the pitcher and give his teammate a pep talk. After the meeting, the first pitch to the next hitter crosses up F2, who asks for time to chat with the pitcher about their signals. ANSWER: b) Time should not be granted, as this would be the second player-to-player meeting during the same inning. Patrick Faerber spends significant time explaining on the Umpire Classroom video why he disagrees with this ... it goes against other language FED uses on the same Study Guide as placing safety above all else. It is his suggestion to handle the situation by going to the mound, and allowing a battery meeting.

10-1-6 does apply to players as well as non-players. It simply uses different terminology (disqualify for players, remove for non-players). The rule states that the umpire's right to do so is absolute, not their action is. So, quite the opposite of what it seems some places do. By my reading of that rule, an umpire can change their decision, but no one else can change it for them. A state, league, or conference may choose to forgo added penalties (e.g., suspensions), but they cannot overturn the disqualification/removal (ejection). As @HumblePie alludes to, I have heard this before, but I cannot put a finger on it. I think it really goes back to the "can't un-ring the bell" nature of the game.

People like me who are staunch advocates that interpretations should not override rules as written. This play was a dominant case the last few years. Hopkins issued an "interpretation by memo" which was not in any published source and was the exact opposite of what the written rule said. What happened to "Rules are hard to change and it can take years, so that is why we govern by decree"? See, rules are not hard to change, and it can be done when the right person wants it done.

I have heard of umpires saying, "OK, whatever", then holding a plate meeting (now paid) and calling it. Not a good look I ever want to be a part of, but once in a while they just aren't as rational as @Kevin_K says. Not NFHS, but a HS tournament on wet, slick turf on a drizzly day. We called it because the pitcher was slipping. Tournament rules were NFHS, but with authority to end a (weather) delay ceded to the TD. TD sent kids out with towels to wipe the mound down, told us it was fine and get back out there. Pitcher slipped on his first warmup back out, we came back off. Rinse and repeat . . . four times. Finally the coach thanked us for trying, then pulled his team and went to chew on the TD (who simply didn't want to give any refunds). Thankfully, it was our last game for the day, so we didn't have to keep dealing with it.

It was the best selling piece of new umpire equipment we've had in years after the first week.

Agreed. On all accounts. Especially that the rule book is vague. Nothing in that rule book should be vague. It is put together by educators. Please accept my apology, Dawg.

Maybe we should ask Hunter this question.

My state has complied with Hopkins interp of RLI but some of you have used "if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" in 8-4-1-g-1 to justify not complying with the interp. Your 2026 book does not have that criteria any more. RLI as Hopkins wants it called is now by rule.