Fittske24

What did you use?

Mine came of with sweat.... Maybe you should work more plates! LOL

Thanks for the offer @D62 blue but I am looking specifically looking for the Douglas model.

I have a set of Grey Wilson..but looking for black to match my CP

Anyone have any they are looking to get rid of? Thanks in advance

Take care bud...keep in touch.

How about I pay you for what you paid for the retrofit and you can keep the plastic. Then you should be able to put the plastic on the old padding and sell the CP for $100? What do ya think?

Get your calls right! No one cares about your fashion sense when you're blowing calls.

@MadMax.... 12Oz Polyester

I'm sure the all-American is nice, but the Honig's is the way to go. It is the same coat that the MLB issues and is built like a tank. I have 3 of them and I wear them every chance I get!

That's exactly why I said "read'em and weep" lol

Read'em and weep! 2015_NCAA_Rule_Changes.pdf

Congrats!

I have a few of the dri-fits with the embroidered swoosh logos. They are a tad bit better than the regular ones.

How does it not make since? The provision in 7.09j says if two fielders have a chance to field a batted ball the one that has the better chance to field the batted ball is protected. So yes F3 is the protected fielder because he has the best chance to field the ball (based on the judgement of the umpire), AND F1, although not originally protected, becomes protected because he fields the batted ball prior to the contact/obstruction. Now the only way I can see this being obstruction is if the plate umpire protected F1 (assuming F1 had the best chance at making the play) thus making F3 unprotected. Then calling obstruction on F3 for altering the runners path.

You are correct the runner MUST avoid the protected fielder which he was doing when he was avoiding F3, making F1 the unprotected player "in jeopardy" of committing obstruction. However you can not have a "projected" obstruction....meaning it isn't obstruction until it's actually obstruction. The definition of obstruction is clear: OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. F3 can't commit obstruction because the runner had already altered his path away from F3 since he is the original "protected fielder" in the act of fielding. F1 (also in the act of fielding) who is the unprotected player, is in jeopardy of committing obstruction..... right up until he fields the ball BEFORE any contact that "impedes the progress of the runner".

In your situation you have the fielder colliding with F3 simultaneously as F1 fields the ball. You would protect the fielder who originally had the best chance to field the ball. However if you have both fielders basically standing in the same spot attempting to field the same ball, and the runner collides with one or both of them, has the runner done a good enough job to avoid the fielder regardless of who should be protected? .....But this is not what happens here in the original play. The ball was fielded cleanly before any contact with the fielder.

IF BR moved to avoid the second, unprotected, fielder, then it's OBS -- even if this second fielder was attempting to field the ground ball. At the point that the runner alters his path we could also argue that F3 is the protected player. We could also argue that F3 continues to be the protected player right up to the point when F1 fields the ball at the same moment the runner begins to alter his path. When the ball is fielded cleanly by F1 prior to the contact, in my judgement this removes the possibility of obstruction by F1 (because has the ball) and removes the possibility of obstruction by F3 due to the runners decision to avoid a protected player who was in the act of fielding. If the runner decided to move the opposite way and contacted F3 with F1 fielding the ball then I think it would have been a no brainer obstruction call.

Why? If it's within F1's reach, he's still in the act of fielding the ball. Why would BR try to create INT? I ment create obstruction not interfere...I edited my original post.... it's a different situation because for a fielder to be protected with the "step in a reach concept" the initial bounding ball had to be mis played. In this case it was fielded cleanly by f1. The protecting of a field or provision is simply a guideline for the calling umpire to use when contact between a fielder and a runner occurs that doesn't allow for the play to be completed. Ao tge question becomes what is the determining action that causes obstruction? Is it the collision? Is it the runner attempting to avoid F1 & F3? By rule the batter runner is required to avoid a fielder fielding a ground ball. So the act of him altering his path to avoid the fielder this alone can not be obstruction.

Did you see this? Would this change your opinion? Isn't the fact that BR has to deviate from his path because of F3 enough for OBS? He doesn't necessarily need to break stride, does he? In your opinion, same play, F1 drops the ball, would you have INT? Dropping the ball here would make this a totally different play. My main point here is that you can't be guilty of committing obstruction if you are the fielder that fields the ball. My question to you is if you totally remove F3 from this play would you have obstruction or an out? Of course it would have been an out. The fact that F1 fields the ball, this now makes him protected. Since the runner chose to veer into F1 (in an effort to help create the obstruction) instead of veering into F3 (who is now the unprotected player because he didn't feel the ball) was simply a bad decision and a wrong guess on the BR's part.

7.09(j) It is interference by a batter or a runner when—He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball; In the referenced play U1 appears to protect F3 and rules F1 is the obstructing player. BUT..... F1 is the player that actually fields the ball. Last time I checked how can you obstruct when you are the fielder that ultimately fields the ball? This is why I probably allow the out to stand. Also worth noting, the BR does not appear to slow down or break his stride (even though he does appear to veer further into fair territory) prior to the collision. If you ask me, the BR veered and chose the wrong fielder to run in to expecting F3 to make the play.

So 2-0 count, batter swings and makes contact, you believe the catcher caught it clean and R1 is stealing. Your partner has it traped but doesn't know you have the batter making contact because you don't make a foul tip signal. R1 is safe at 2nd. What then? Please enlighten me. Here is another foul tip situation that has happened to me on several different occasions.... 0-2 count high fast ball (over the plate but out of the strike zone), batter obviously checks his swing, but the ball slightly grazes off his bat cleanly into the catcher's mitt. Without the foul tip mechanic please explain how you signal this out?

LL is Non-Profit, but that doesn't mean no one is making money. LL has around 100+ full time employees that get paid a salary. There was an article that came out in July talking about this same topic. Below are some excerpts and the link to the full article: http://www.pennlive.com/little-league-world-series/2014/07/little_league_not_a_big_busine.html "People say Little League is a big business, but it is not, said Stephen D. Keener, president and chief executive officer. It has only 105 full-time employees, most of them at its headquarters in South Williamsport. Little League functions with so few employees because of 1.5 million program volunteers around the world, he said." "According to a filing with the Internal Revenue Service for the fiscal year ending last Sept. 30, tax-exempt Little League generated $24.6 million in revenue compared to expenses of $23.4 million." "A major revenue source has been the television contract with ESPN. An eight-year, $76 million contract that takes effect next year is more than double than the $30.1 million agreement that is expiring. Local leagues benefit from the television money. When the current TV contract was signed, league charter fees were reduced from $18 to $16 a team. Next year when the new contract takes effect, they will be reduced again, Keener said." "The major expenses are salaries and benefits ($7.3 million), operating costs, insurance, supplies for the leagues and travel, he said." "Little League pays about $400,000 a year to provide each league with 125 free criminal background checks on managers, coaches and volunteers." Keener had a base salary of $351,060 for the year ending last Sept. 30. Including retirement and other benefits that must be reported to the IRS as income, the total was $430,844. The base pay for David Houseknecht, senior vice president and chief financial officer, was $210,000. By comparison, according to an IRS document, the base compensation for the executive director of the Boy Scouts in 2011 was $543,341.

Tripp executed this play exactly how he instructs it. He stayed on the hip pocket of the catcher and allowed the glove hand side to take him to the tag. I agree he is in perfect position and not too close to see all of the important elements of the play. Plays at the plate are all about last second adjustments to get you in proper position. If you are too far back, you have more ground to cover to make those adjustments. This may cause you to get blocked out from an important aspect of the play.

Those were not umpire shirts. Those we're standard style Nike dri-fit golf polos. The crew was probably only allowed to wear nike logoed gear and had to wear the shirts. The same shirt can be seen here: '' target='_blank'>>