Leaderboard

Chico's Bail Bonds...

Lenscrafters..................

Well, used my FM4000MAG today and it impressed me. I took two shots and it did a great job. Of course one shot was to my right shin guard and the other was to my right thigh, but the mask was great during those two incidents. The big pads, especially the chin pad, absorbed all of my tears when I was hit in the thigh. Oh, it is unbelievably light and the view is fantastic. Of course Jim Kirk says stay tuned when the black model is mentioned.

If this indeed true (and I would believe Hickman), then that would – unfortunately – explain the bloated price tag. Textiles, even something as simple as shirts, are cost prohibitive to produce in the United States, primarily due to labor regulations, OSHA and EPA fees, and a whole host other financial hinderances. Having these pants produced here in the States makes them a bit more attractive, but certainly won’t be able to purchase them in quantity or frequency.

Is that a Goldmember reference?!?

The FED definition of catch in rule 2-9-1 actually mentions the ball touching the ground-- 2017 NFHS rule 2-9-1 NOTE: When a batted ball or a pitch is involved, the above definition of a catch applies. For any other thrown ball, the term is used loosely to also apply to a pick-up or to the trapping of a low throw which has touched the ground. A fielder may have the ball in his grasp even though it is touching the ground while in his glove.

No flat front? I can't wear pleats.

Joe West responded with a bit of snark about Girardi's time as a player ("While it would probably have been safer to call balls and strikes behind the mound when Girardi was catching, we prefer to stay behind the plate to keep our 97.3% average"). I ran the #s on Girardi's ejections as NYY Manager for ball/strike calls and the umps were still right 75% of the time that he got tossed - five total incorrect ball/strike calls that led to an ejection in 10 years. https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/08/joe-west-greets-girardis-ump-proposal.html

Continuing to run the bases in and of itself is not INT. Unless intentional, I have 2 outs with R3 and R1/R2. I also have someone who needs to pay more attention and/or work on their mechanics.

Two issues. 1. The runner can't be out twice, there are times where you rule a teammate out on retired runner interference (see point number 2) 2. If all the runner did was continue to run the bases that is not interference, if he did some thing to intentionally interfere that would be different but just continuing to run isn't enough. The defense needs to k ow the situation.

This post needs its own thread. Play: bases loaded, 1 out. Ground ball to F5, who steps on 3B, retiring R2. Throws wild to 1B, R1 to 3B, BR to 2B. The defense fields the overthrow and throws to HP, playing on (retired) R3. The umpires rule R3 out (again) for INT. If I have that correct, the umpires were wrong, and doubly so. First, it's not INT. Second, no runner under any circumstances can be both the second and third outs in an inning. The result should have been 1 out on the play only, resulting in 2 outs for the inning with runners on 2B and 3B. Also: umpires, don't keep it secret when the defense records a force out, even if it's "obvious"!

MR20 Inactive 0 1 post Report post Posted 57 minutes ago Hi all, the end result of this play was called Interference. Is that the correct call? With the bases loaded and one out, the batter hit a grounder to 3B. The runner from 3B scored. The third basemen fielded the ball and tug 3B for the force out on the runner from 2B (for the 2nd out) and threw the ball to 1B hoping for a double play. However, the throw to 1B was errant and the batter was safe. The runner from 1B went all the way to 3B during this time. Here is where it gets crazy. The runner who was forced out at 3B thought he was safe and ran towards home on the errant throw. The defensive team threw home and the runner was called out (again) for the final out of the inning. The defense left the field. The offensive team realized what happened and argued that the runner couldn't be called out twice. Their stance was that the play should be ruled dead and the batter, who had gone to 2B when the defense threw home, should be returned to 1B and there should still be 2 outs. After a long discussion, the umpires ruled that the runner wasn't out because he was tagged out at home (the second time he'd been called out) but he was out because of interference. That was the final out and end of the inning. Was that the correct call? I had never seen anything like it before. Thank you, Mike ^ This was posted by @MR20 and was closed and sent here. Don't know why, not the same situation, but anyway. Continuing to to run the bases is not in and of itself INT. Unless intentional, I would have 2 outs with R3, and R1/R2. Wish there was a video on this!

THIS IS RE_OPENED ...I thought MR20's post was a duplicate, ...may fault

Well. we are talking about free range MadMax, so he should be ok. And we all are appreciative of his well thought out and articulated review articles. All hail MadMax.