Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/14/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    The Jeopardy GOAT series has me in a mood to buzz in 1st to answer: What is “Lightweight Ultra Cool”? @MadMax can play Alex Trebek and tell me if that’s correct.
  2. 2 points
    [I know you're not a lawyer...but I am, so I'm going to use the lawyer analogy. It is not perfect, but here goes:] That's like a lawyer saying. "I read all the statutes, but I'm not going to read any Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions." Such a lawyer would be committing legal malpractice. Court decisions give meanings to the statutes; they interpret the statutes and tell persons (and lawyers) how to behave or act accordingly in a particular situation. The NFHS casebook (and the MiLB and MLB Umpire Manuals) tell umpires how to interpret and apply the rules. These publications do not make "suggestions" as to how one should apply the rules (as written in the applicable rule book) on the field during the game. Rather, they tell umpires how they "must" apply the rules (as written in the rule book) during a game. The casebook is binding authority...just like the rule book. Let me give you an example: In OBR, it is written (to paraphrase) that all runners are awarded two bases from the time-of-the-pitch on an overthrow by an infielder that goes into DBT if that overthrow was the first play by an infielder on a batted ball. The key word in that entire definition is "play". Unfortunately, if you were in umpire school with me in 1997 you would not be able to find a definition of what constitutes a "play" for purposes of this rule no matter how hard you looked in the rule book. Rather, you would have to go to the applicable umpire manual to find that a "play" for purposes of this rule is a (1) tag or attempted tag of a base by a fielder in an attempt to retire a runner; (2) a tag or attempted tag of a runner by a fielder in an attempt to retire a runner; or (3) a throw by one fielder to another fielder in an attempt to retire a runner. Without the appropriate casebook, one cannot understand the rule. This is just one example. There are many, many of these in every rule set. Heck, the MLB Umpire Manual has three pages of binding authority on when the defensive team may (and may not) execute a valid appeal of a missed base or a failure to re-touch a base. I am making a friendly suggestion that you re-evaluate your current practice of not "look(ing) in the case book all that much. ANY year."
  3. 2 points
    Well, [poop]. I am, in fact, properly chastened. I didn't get a copy of the case book, Senor, but even if I *had*, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have looked in it whilst taking the test. Partly because I was convinced I was right when I hit "Next," and partly because .... well, I just don't look in the case book all that much. ANY year. Thank you, gentlemen, for the help. Since I learned something, this exact play better happen about 5-10 times this year....
  4. 2 points
    Check with your local dry cleaner as many of them do alterations. We have one that will fit and hem pants for $10. They don't advertise, I think they just do it for customers. They aren't same day, but 2-3 days is quicker than I'd be able to get to them and they do a better job.
  5. 2 points
    180 degree turn ... tell me your thoughts when it is phrased this way: I understand the rules cited but I still can't see how I or anyone else could realistically allow the offense to benefit in the situation described.
  6. 1 point
    I don't want to spoil Max's fun - but I believe that is correct!
  7. 1 point
    If I may also suggest getting a traveler's crease put in them. You will thank me later.
  8. 1 point
    That's what I have usually done in the past. I had a team where we stole home probably five or six times one season. I normally alerted the home plate umpire so he did not get caught by surprise.
  9. 1 point
    I do too. IT comes from what I was taught whilst a member of Uncle Sams Misguided Children. With the break of 5/8" from front to back, it laid nicer on the shoe without looking LIKE $#!T.
  10. 1 point
    hey Yank, look at it this way, the fewer players swinging a bat (at the same time), the less likely they are to cause an injury or harm another player. Honestly, I wouldn't want to give a banged up, bruised or bloody player back to mom after the game, would you?
  11. 1 point
    I wonder if it makes a farting sound as the air exits the pads. I'd pay for that. Actually, I find this quite interesting. Am I going to ditch my current rig? I dunno. Maybe.
  12. 1 point
    Does this mean he gets kicked off The Positive Coaching Alliances advisory board? Maybe a little pep talk from Jerry Crawford again could help, as he obviously did not listen to Jerry's wisdom the first time around and look what happened by not listening. Look at the scoreboard, that's your fault. So I guess today is also Jerry's fault.
  13. 1 point
    Again, for using external technology...not for on field sign stealing/decoding.
  14. 1 point
    I always have a pro hem my pants. I get mine a little shorter in the front, than the back. I have them hem up a lot of material as the extra weight on the plate pants tends to pull them down, and keep them from binding up and looking goofy. And yeah, wear your shin guards and plate shoes when getting fitted.
  15. 1 point
    Wait until the Red Sox get their penalty...Cora will get TWO years - one for each year he did it with each team. The problem is easy to solve - get the monitors out of the clubhouses and dugouts - they were put there as part of the replay review system...if the call is so egregiously bad they don't need a monitor to know they want to challenge it...and that's what the replay review system is supposed to support. Not really practical unless only the pitcher or manager calls the pitches...the catcher really can't say anything without the batter hearing...and in most scenarios the catcher calls the majority of, if not all, the game. It also gets problematic with signs to the batter and baserunners - in football the coach communicates with one player on offense and one on defense, and then they relay to their teammates, usually out of earshot of other players...a little more difficult in baseball, and the more ear pieces, the more chance for failure. NFL has pretty well thought out rules about timing, and what happens if one team's equipment fails - not sure if it's really achievable in baseball.
  16. 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.
  17. 1 point
    Yes, I know it sounds crazy, blatantly ignoring the rules you are paid to enforce makes you a poor official. And, also makes life more difficult for every other official who actually tries to do their job properly....because they always run across coaches who say "but the last umpire we had told me something different". But you keep following the MSU rule book if it makes you happy. Christ - you make a statement..and when told you are wrong you ask for proof via rule citation...then when shown the rule you say you're going to ignore it. wtf are you here if you're not interested in learning? You're not gonna get your ego massaged either.
  18. 1 point
    No, it is not. Intent doesn't matter on retired runner interference UNLESS they are simply continuing to run the bases normally...with the exception of completing their slide (NOT getting up after the slide) , and possibly returning to third believing they missed the base, a scored runner can not continue to run the bases normally. Getting up is not running the bases normally. Returning to the dugout is not running the bases normally. Once you understand that you understand that the retired/scored runner is offered no protection here, and thus intent has no bearing on the play. If they interfered with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner, that runner is out. If there was no play to be made, there's no interference. The only judgment is whether or not there was a play to interfere with. There is NO judgment on the scored runner's intent or lack thereof. Your call would be properly protested, and properly overturned.
  19. 1 point
    That's because you're refusing to accept that you are incorrect.
  20. 1 point
    What makes you think the spirit of the rule says that this isn't interference?
  21. 0 points
    All UE members, colleagues and fellow umpires, It is with a very heavy heart that I relay the news that our friend and brother Grayhawk (Steve) lost his wife Christine on Saturday, January 11th. I have asked Steve personally if it was ok for me to post this. Please keep Steve and his entire extended family in your prayers. I can't even begin to imagine what he's going through, but knowing there are others thinking about him can only help, even if it's just a little bit. Hold close to the ones you love, and never think that you can say "I love you" too much! From everyone here at Umpire-Empire.com, @grayhawk ... Our very deepest condolences. You and your family are in our thoughts and prayers!


×
×
  • Create New...