Leaderboard

I'm not sure the Zapruder film got this much analysis...

They are "crap" because of the questionable value of the Kevlar? Let's say you're right and it does nothing - that doesn't mean they are crap. Have you used them? I've taken 85 mph shots to them and they were perfect; many on this board with extensive experience consider them the best, or one of the best, shin guards out there. I'm all for sharing opinions, but when you make such a strong statement you should back it up with something about their performance. Even if the Kevlar is worthless for shin guards, it's not like these are overly expensive compared to other similar quality options.

Good no call. Same ruling in FED (the INT provision for a thrown ball is substantially the same). Here's how I suggest thinking about this play. R1 clearly steps into what he expects to be the throwing lane as F3 fields the batted ball. He surely intends to put himself between F3 and F6 in case there's a throw to 2B. Is that intentional act INT? No—there's no throw yet, or even an attempt to throw. At the time of the runner's choosing his base path, F3 doesn't even have the ball. At any level, it's up to the fielder to "play around" a runner who is running the bases legally. Had R1 deviated afterward—say he saw F6 move "inside" to take a throw—we might have something. Or waving his arms. That's what we should be looking for on these plays. "Setting up" a base path based on where F3 is fielding the ball is nothing.

@Rock Bottom, one of the features about the AS masks that does not get talked about enough is the "dispersion plate" in their pads. All of this is available on YouTube. I believe it's either the AS channel or the Ump-Attire channel. Stan Jurga at All-Star walks us through a very detailed and thorough explanation about their company, their products and their testing. (What companies do you support and wear? What kind of testing are they doing? What kind of testing are they showing you they are doing? Not a criticism...just a question we should all be asking ourselves...) Basic physics tell us that all of the other mask pads that are out there concentrate the force of a blow on the mask at the point of impact. All-Star's dispersion plate, which is a plate that runs along the OUTSIDE of the entire lower pad (still encased in the outer material...) takes the force of the blow of a baseball and disperses it throughout a larger area. A baseball's contact patch is perhaps the size of a quarter. Would you rather have that force focused on that quarter-sized contact patch or would you rather have it spread and dispersed (meaning the force is fading as you move away from the point of impact)? I don't know if AS has a patent on this dispersion plate or not but, I don't know why more mask manufacturers are not using it. As for the Windpact pads...I think they are a wonderfully uniquely innovative idea which still need a bit more testing and development. I wore those pads for a few games and I just didn't feel as protected as I do when I wear those AS pads. I have a large face and jawline which protrudes beyond the confines of most non-AS masks and pads to include Windpact pads. This does not mean the Windpacts won't work for YOU. It just means they are not the best choice for ME. ~Dawg

Using that information to help make a judgment is wise, but I would never tell the coach that. Same as when a batter might have fouled it off his foot, but we didn't see it. But we do see the batter not running and use that information to make the call. We don't tell the coach for the defense, "I didn't see whether it hit his foot or not, but he didn't run so I killed it."

That is a list and a comparison of pros and cons. Measuring would be data. You may want to redact those images. People's addresses and information are showing.

I like this no call. Intentionally interfering with the ability to make a good throw is not the same as intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

I call that EvoShield ProSRZ mask "the goblin". It is a hideous mask, lookin' very feral. The reason for the rust? It's untreated steel. If they claim it's paint, they're lyin'. Someone at EvoShield got paid (a few yuan, granted) to press the button on the paint gun, regardless of any paint actually coming out and coating the frame. But hey!... it's got that EvoShield logo on it, and the MLB Lou Gehrig on it, which is B-I-G for credibility swag factor. Supposedly, there's a titanium-framed ProSRZ (maybe it's the "Pro-" part) on the market, but I have yet to see it. I've seen plenty of EvoShield sponsored amateur catchers wearing the shins, the CP (which are both rather good), and with a goblin's face leering back at me. Hideous savage. You're going to get that with any of the 2 – someday soon, 3 – magnesium frames on the market. Magnesium is the mythical silver bullet for mask frames – it's light, it doesn't bend, and it doesn't break (unless under extreme stress). There are two paths, or avenues, to solving the "mask problem" – geometric or mechanical. Force3 has gone mechanical; it's a valid avenue, but it's hit a cul-de-sac, hindered by cost. The only way – the only way – to support the springs suspension is to house them in steel, and to weld them to the steel subframe. It cannot feasibly be done any other way. The only thing that can be lightened is the outer frame, perhaps being titanium. It cannot be aluminum, because aluminum won't deform enough so as to activate the springs, and all the stress will be on the aluminum frame at the point where it fastens to the spring assemblies. If carbon fiber was to be considered, we're now talking engineering processes and software that rival the labors of supercar manufacturers. Again, the Force3 Defender is a great mask, and is the co- "best" mask on the market... which it shares... with... All-Star. All-Star has gone all-in on a geometric solution. They started to do this with the FM1000 and FM2000, and culminated in the FM4000 (I don't know what happened to the 3000), increasing the slant and vectoring with each rendition. Instead of the mask frame absorbing the assailing impact, their frame deflects it into a glancing, ricocheting shot. The actual alloy cocktail of magnesium can be adjusted now so as to allow the frame to dampen – metallurgically – the impact energy, further reducing it as it is transferred to the pads... which @SeeingEyeDog pointed out, possess that hard distributor plate. To answer Dawg's rhetorical musing, the reason other companies don't infuse a distributor plate into their mask pads is because they "drunk the yelloW kool-aid", and fell in with the cult of Professional decree that "you must change your mask pads annually". Why on Earth would you ever put more cost of materials into something that you have to change yearly anyway?? The Rampage was another prototype planform that was, as far as I can surmise, a technical exercise. The FM4000 has its own challenge – due to the extreme sloped shaping of the forehead section, the mask cannot be molded in one go; it has to be two separate halves. So, at the ear guards, there are correlating wedges of steel inserted in promptly after the mold is filled, and the two halves are welded together at those two points. The Rampage, by contrast, is molded in one shot. Well, instead of shelving or discarding the mold, a production run of them was made, and Champro brought it to (the USA) market. Other companies have since picked up production batches of this frame, but they all suffer from the same shortcoming – pads. It's the pads, pads, pads... that make all the difference. Derek's right, to an extent. Windpact is merely the company that developed the technology, which they dubbed "CrashCloud". It's an air bladder, comprised of a membrane that holds air molecules at an ever-so-slightly different PSI than the outside air. When an impact compresses the bladder, the membrane allows the air to escape the bladder with resistance; at the same time (we're talking nanoseconds), a fill valve is inletting air in to force the bladder to re-inflate (I might have this inverted; if I do, I'll correct it later). Think of it like an airbag in your car, but on your face; or a whoopie cushion, without the... flatulent sound. Air has a decided advantage in these protective systems because its mass is negligible. Open cell foam has very weak compression... unless you have more mass. Closed cell foam has very hard compression... but the mass of it increases as you increase the volume. With CrashCloud, because you can securely hold–then flush–then refill (big) air cells, you don't need closed cell foam's structure, nor do you need all that much open cell foam; just enough to fit to and contact your face in crucial spots.

Loved the F3's so much never took anything near 80 but possibly 60's and I never ever felt a thing other than the sound of a good solid whack and then all the fans going OOOOOOOOHHHH Bah did not hurt my wife hits harder.

They are. But then, do consider, the All-Star Cobalt shinguards are very good, too, as are the forthcoming Gerry Davis Sports shinguards (model # pending). Heck, the DaviShins were good shinguards, as are the Champro replications of them. I know exactly why you used All-Star LP11's... I used to have a set myself, for my first 3 years of umpiring. I got them because they were ridiculously lower profile than the bulky shin pillows that Rawlings and Wilson both made/make. Then I got Force3 Ultimates, and I've not trusted anything else. Fit & forget. The only thing to Douglas' detriment is their (continued, stubborn) use of Qualux, which is the loathsome open cell upholstery foam that (continues to) plague(s) umpire gear. Otherwise, the benefits & features are top-notch – USA Made, hard-plate ankle buttresses, OtK (over the knee) protective flap... and bombproof construction. However, they're not for everyone. I'm a hardened HoK stance-guy, and the OtK flap (or flaps, as per some Wilsons and Diamond units) irritates me, and is pointless (especially since we have ThighPro now!). The ankle buttresses don't quite fit cleanly with mid-to-3/4 cut plate shoes. And... the squeaking. Oh LORD, the SQUEAKING! Those wretched hard metal clips. If I was to own a set of Douglas shinguards, I would cut all the metal D-rings off (leaving the bare loop of webbing), and remove all those stupid metal clips... and use G-hooks! By comparison, the Force3 Ultimates are tremendously good. So they don't float Micheal's boat . They're the ideal balance of protection and (low) profile. Instead of a hard-plate ankle buttress, they use "soft plate" buttresses. I find these interface... kinder(?)... than hard plate on all types of plate shoes. Yeah, they use Kevlar... but Force3 throws Kevlar in everything they make (I eyeball their gear bags sometimes, wondering). In this case, it performs exactly as its intended, and the shin liner and the sizing foam cushions are decidedly separate. This is a beneficial feature. Lastly, they use plastic side release buckles, which never* fail or come unhooked (like those stupid clips), and do not squeak. However, with that said, I'm eyeballing my older pair of Force3's, and are seriously considering taking all the SR buckles off and trialing a set of G-hooks. I love the G-hooks that much. Change yer life, man. I do have to say, though, the Great Call shinguards are rather nice, as are the forthcoming GDSports shins. I've got a set of shinguards on my "mad lab bench" that will address a lot of flaws and shortfalls of shinguards, but I can't ask you to hold your breath... I'm terribly overloaded these days. * – And before @The Man in Blue jumps on me, yes yes, we remember that you had a SR buckle break on a freak glancing shot from a passing baseball. SR buckles can be replaced... they make SR buckles with removable pins; simply break/cut away the old plastic buckle (leave the webbing loop alone!), and affix the pin thru the loop into the replacement SR buckle. However... with how giddy I am over G-hooks, I'd advise... G-hooks.

I'd venture to guess that more people play adult slow pitch in North America (men's, women's, co-ed) than baseball (youth and adult) and fastpitch (youth and adult) combined. It's far more accessible to the casual player. And, the facilities will prioritize those adult slow pitch leagues because of the beer sales they generate. I think the mat has become pretty much the norm...5-10 foot or 6-12 foot arc...and even seeing leagues/tournaments that start all counts at 1-1. Third strike fouls are outs. HR's are capped. Commit lines and no tags at home. And many other variants. All designed to speed up the game and/or make it fun accessible for less skilled players...and to help co-ed considerations. (eg. penalties for walking a guy with a girl on deck) And the vast majority of these games are done by one ump...with perhaps gold medal games in tournaments getting the second official.

Never used the Douglas shins, but the F3s are stellar. I've taken many shots off of them and never felt any pain. I suspect they are a bit lighter (and less expensive) than the Douglas shins as well.

It's definitely Jethro Tull related ☺️

I think they call that "Replay Assist." I can see MLB evolving into something like that on calls like hit by pitch, catch/no catch, fair/foul, batter fouling it off himself, boundary calls.

Get this call all day long, twice on tournament days, and one more time on days that end in Y. If you do not, you WILL get the catcher popping the kid in the melon because YOU just (incorrectly) taught him he "has to make the throw." (No, he doesn't.) If you are judging he held the throw because he didn't want to throw it on his own (not because of the batter), I suppose you can use that. Don't base it on whether or not you thought there was a viable play, though. We do not want to do anything that implies he must make the throw (that does apply for RLI) and will result in popping melons.

Kole Calhoun. @Velho posted the clip. Note the difference – Calhoun actively moves his head into the (thrown) ball. He’s lookin’ right at it. By contrast, Machado is running away from the source of the throw, too, but in this case, he’s blind to it. As catchers, we were privy to this insight – Runners were being coached to either slide-and-evade you (and your impending tag attempt), or they’d target their slide into your mitt. It would take a really deft – or lucky – amateur catcher to catch–secure–and–tag a runner all at once. More often than not, the percentages would bear out that the ball would be bobbled, or be dislodged, or get away from the catcher. It was maddening to me, again as a catcher, when I would perceiveably put my throw right at the merge point between fielder’s glove and runner’s arms / legs, only to see the ball squirt out. If (my) fielder secured it, and maintained possession, that 🤬 was out! But just because he knocked / deflected my thrown ball away, is he guilty of INT? Nope. Tough luck.

In my head a thrown ball is one that has been released. If its not released then its not thrown. This is not the tuck rule 🤣

I think it should be called in FED. And MLB/OBR and NCAA☺️

No but if the shot kills them you'll likely get manslaughter instead of murder*. The only penalty baseball gives us to use is for murder. Anything less is officially classified as a full acquittal. * Note: I'm not a lawyer but I've watched a lot of Law & Order.

You or your association should have to pay for a print version. $12 is a little steep compared to NCAA $10 which is usually part of what you pay to your college association. The problem is with NFHS All Access. The app signs you out when it should stay signed in and they want $6.99 for the online edition. Cue @The Man in Blue

Sustained...withdrawn...thanks, 'Hawk... ~Dawg

@Rock Bottom . . .

do we not see a lot of this on throws by F5 to home with runner on 3rd trying to score or throws home by left fielder on runner trying to score and the runner running on inside to get hit by throw.

I would too. I'll send it to Randy to see what he says.

Now THAT is intentionally interfering with a thrown ball! Reggie should've been called out for hip checking a thrown ball in the WS decades ago, but that whole play was a mess because the batted ball was intentionally dropped in the first place and wasn't called.

Since @MadMax did such a great job providing an analytic view (as he seems to always do), I'll just provide my opinion. My first mask I bought (side note: I got into umpiring by getting an equipment scholarship from Battlefields2Ballfields--a great veteran-focused non-profit) was the V1 Defender. I liked it. A lot. I blame on @tpatience my penchant for light masks--it was from him I bought my first Ti mask and was spoiled because of its light weight. Then a peer got the AS Mag and while I was originally put off by its appearance, the featherweight (relatively speaking) nature of the mask wore me down, and when I got it powdercoated it became my favorite mask. And the V1 Defender? You never forget your first love, but I ended up selling it.

☝️This, this right here.

I always seem to have a terrible time unhooking these, but I've never been great unhooking bras, so...

Douglas shins are bullet proof. I’ve used them all 4 years of my pro career and haven’t felt a thing. Highly recommended and worth the extra money

My son bought an EvoShield shortly after they came out … can’t speak to the pads, but his frame turned into a tetanus hazard within a single season. I told him to contact them and send it back. It had more rust than a 1950s vehicle left in a field for 60 years. I have no idea what he did to lead to that, as he is very meticulous about his gear.

Sorry guys, I am not buying odds of concussion reasoning here. Out of all of the MLB games this year, roughly 2500 - 2600 games (including spring training), does anyone know how many concussions have been received? Honest question. Even if 25 have been had, 1% of all games, I would take that risk. I wouldn't think it comes close to 25 in any year that MLB has been played. ( I would be amazed if someone came up with this stat though). Heck, football or hockey players have a significantly higher chance of a concussion per game and there isn't any qualms about them hanging them up. This is arguing human nature and not comparing players to referees where players are in the mix of action and the referees are on the outskirts of play. If we want to argue fatigue of taking all of the plates, I can go for that, but not the chance of concussions.

I think they are referring to a throw hitting the batter as opposed to the batter interfering with the catcher throwing. But we can still have INT with a batter hit by the throw who has moved into the path, intentionally or not. He no longer satisfies "standing in the box" allowed by MiLBUL/MLBUM.

… or less restrictions, or less requirements (“you must purchase and wear this shirt (and hat)!”), or waived fees & dues (heaven forbid the assigner doesn’t get his cut!), or any kind of facility accommodations beyond “change in the parking lot, fellas! But don’t do so in view of a Karen or any kids!” I swear, on this last point, High Schools actively don’t want women officials for softball or baseball, because that would force the issue of locker room / facilities access.

@834k3r – “Quickly, quickly! There’s no time!”

No you don't...

There is no rule about a fielder blocking the runner's view, BUT: MLBUM: "(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection."

DEAD BALL!

This would be one for MLB to copy NFL and do the proactive non-coach initiated reviews (I forget what they call it)

To me the one and only film of it here on this thread shows me he made his move ( his 1st reaction ) to get between the infielders well before the throw was being attempted he took another step maybe 2 and then headed for the bag at that point the ball was on its way and hits the back of his helmet. I dont see a purposeful head tilt or an arm shoot up on purpose to swat at the ball. The steps he took after the initial "move" were all done not looking back at the player whom fielded the ball. Do I think the A-hole did it on purpose and with intent Yes. but by the rule I cannot say he did it with the ball being thrown. In my judgement he did all that before the thrown ball. /shrug Im not saying I like it either.

That is what I was coming to say. I'm pretty sure the Cardinals had a play like that last season (maybe early this season?), where R3 took an unnatural and intentional path to home solely to attempt to interfere with the throw. Sorry, but I disagree with the way the logic is being applied for the no call. An intentional and unnatural movement that is solely meant to "make a play harder" is intent to interfere. I don't get off for shooting the gun in your direction rather than shooting it at you.

MLB will be along soon to explain how Blakney called a foul ball on a fly ball that first fell on foul territory, in accordance with the Foul definition in the rule book and the MLBUM interp of calling this. Meanwhile announcers and the internet will be quoting it hit chalk. Confirmed on review. As far as I could tell less than half the ball was over fair, thus, assuming flat plate geometry, it first touched foul territory.

So is this based on when the throwing act/motion starts, or when the ball leaves his hand? When F3 starts the act of throwing R1 is not in the way of the throw, nor is his path between F3 and F6. R1's newly formed path (started after F3 had the ball in his glove) took him into the throwing path by the time the ball left F3's hand, but not before that. At 0:05 F3 has the ball in his glove. At 0:07 F3 has the ball in his bare hand and is starting the throw...at this point R1 has taken three full steps towards second since F3 fielded the ball and has not yet veered left. In short, at this point there's no runner in F3's way, and no reason to move left or right to make the throw. R1's very next step is about 45 degrees left, but still on the dirt, as F3's arm is back about to come forward with the throw. R1 then drifts further left into the grass, to align with F6's glove, as F3 releases the ball...then waits as long as he can to turn 45 degrees. or more, in order to have a bona fide slide into second base. He absolutely purposefully attempted to interfere with the ball - he altered his running path at least six feet to the left with that sole purpose in mind. To say otherwise is just silly. And it's plain to see he moves his path even further left as he can see where F6 is preparing to catch the throw...but that is not as drastic as the initial left turn. The question isn't his intent, which is plain to anyone with eyes...the question is whether or not it's allowed.

Well solely based on the fact I think Manny is an A-hole I would have called him out. But any other player.. no call It was deliberate and planned from the second he moved cause he looked to where the ball was being fielded. However that is not a thrown ball once he was already there he did not purposely attempt to interfere with the ball. The 1st baseman should have moved inside or outside for the throw.

Had a pair of DaviShins since I started (well, since I upgraded from catcher's shinguards and moved into the world of "real" umpiring). I love the simplistic design (two straps, not a ton of "moving pieces") and the lower profile. I figured the notch-and-tab "hooks" would be the fail-point when they finally gave out. Roughly 15 years later and nothing has given out. Never took any hits that concerned me. The couple of times I wore the F3s, they were light and comfortable. I admit I missed the feel of the simple elegance of the DaviShins, though. The F3s were fine, but I felt more "suited up" like Iron Man than James Bond.

I use and recommend the F3. These are the best shins I've had since UmpShins. UmpShins are no longer made (15-20 yrs ago?), but the closest thing to them are the Davis UmpShins. Ump shins being the lightest thing I could find, but just a bit to big/bulky on the knee cap for my liking.

I had to look up G hooks.

Keep your head on a swivel man. 😁 [Note: defusing not escalating]

Well, everyone, in about 17 days, it will be a year since I first posted the question. Does anyone know where I can get my equipment retrofitted? Since then, a journey has begun; I know I haven't posted, and people have asked if I stopped this. No, I have not; I have invested most of my resources into MILB/MLB baseball, as I have about 10-15 orders of retrofit pads this month alone for MILB and MLB umpires. I don't share this to brag but to reflect on how far I have come. I couldn't have done it without everyone's help on this forum and their input. We now post on Instagram at UMP Guard Retrofit LLC. This has been a blast!