yawetag

That's not even an exception.

Shall we all take our DiSC profile while we're at it? Maybe Myers-Briggs? All of those tests put me as a very introverted, analytical person who hates conflict. But all of those tests will also remind you that your personality will change in different situations and environments. While I agree that many officials appear to be Type-As, or high Ds (not THAT D!), or ENTJs, it doesn't mean that's how they are away from the field.

If this means what I'm reading, I'm surprised you weren't ejected.

With my luck, I'd have been given the game we had rained out and never rescheduled.

> The replay tech will have any number of angles to show the umpires and can sync up two shots at once. IIRC, this was an issue when the review room was first started. They couldn't sync up different angles, which made some calls difficult, as you'd have the catch on one angle and the touch on the second.

My boss is already commenting on the time I'm in the restroom at work. Imagine if I took a rules book with me!

You are absolutely correct. I worded that horribly. My point was that unless there's proof other than "she's the only mixed-race girl here," then it's probably best left unsaid. If this girl was penalized and there are others who were just as exposed or worst, then maybe you can use this argument. It would also be applicable if the official were overheard saying something discriminatory toward her race. But to imply racism just because she was the only mixed-race girl there is a hill I wouldn't want to die on when making this argument.

Certainly not defending the official here, but the reason she's the only one disqualified is BECAUSE she's "rounder" and "curvier". If the school doesn't have a suit sized to her proportions and she's forced to wear the best-fitting suit they offer, then she's going to be showing more than the less-round, less-curved girls. The fact she's mixed-race is immaterial, unless you can show a pattern of this behavior.

It is. So just remove the "can't return" part of the awards rule, rewrite any case plays, and make it an obvious rule change.

Using OP's situation, if any umpire (even in 6-man) wasn't aware this was a retouch situation, I have no faith in him even understanding the nuance of the awarding situation we've discussed, much less that it's two bases from time of throw.

I agree with his not dealing with it, but his reasoning is off-base. Observing something doesn't mean staring at it. If something catches my eye - which an off-colored undergarment definitely can do - that's not wrong. He just accused his partner of doing the very thing he didn't want to be accused of doing.

That seems .... easy? Don't allow dead-ball appeals until runners complete any awards. It would allow a runner to correct any retouches prior to any appeal. That just takes one line in the rule and some case play to emphasize: "Dead-ball appeals should not be made or ruled until all runners have completed any awards."

I purposely left any reference to this out. OP mentioned OBR, so I was keeping it simple.

I'll throw this back at you: You award him 3B. He advances without retouching and OC comes out to question you on why you only awarded one base. What do you tell him? If you aren't awarding 2 bases from TOT, that will get you into trouble. If OC were to protest the game because you only awarded one base, you can bet "But I'm awarding from the fact he had to retouch" is going to get that protest approved.

First, Mr. Childress makes it plain that the rules support my position. You should award him home. He's arguing you adjust your actions for lower-level ball. Second, I disagree with Mr. Childress here. If you award him 3B, you're just inviting the OC to come out and argue that he gets two bases. What do you do then? It's not my job to give either side information they shouldn't already know. If I award him one base, it's tipping BOTH sides that something is wrong. If I award him home, it's giving nothing to either team and it's up to both to realize there's a problem. Third, I will concede that your award doesn't have to be immediate. Kill the ball when it goes out of play and give R1 a beat or two to see what he does. If he starts to go back to 1B, wait and give the award when he retouches. But if he's just standing on the base or - as most runners will do - starts to advance to 3B, award him home.

He absolutely is entitled to it. OBR 5.06(b)(4)(G): Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands ... governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made. Nothing in the rule states "last legally touched" or anything similar - just 2 bases from their position at the time of the throw.

Yes, but I don't know that social media restrictions were part of their lawsuit. There are several checkpoints that have to be reached to be moved from contractor to employee; while PIAA was able to show some of those points were relevant, they couldn't prove others. While I think it's a very real argument, especially with the way some organizations (both state and the ones that are responsible for training and assigning), I also think it will be a hard fight to win. As I said in my previous post: as organizations start to restrict our actions away from the field, they start to toe more of those lines that PA couldn't prove were crossed.

These types of situations are what moves us farther and farther away from being independent contractors and closer to employees.

No, you tell runners what base they get. On all awards. You don't have to necessarily say "You - second," but you definitely point at the runner and then point at the base they're awarded. However, saying the base just makes it clearer to everyone. And you would lose that argument. You're awarded two bases from your last touched base, you get two bases from your last touched base. It's your job as a runner to know you need to go back and retouch.

Good to hear. Here's ASAA's (Alaska School Athletic Association) statement: http://asaa.org/activities/swim-dive/. In effect, unless the suit was obviously modified by the swimmer, officials should stop looking for trouble.

That's the exact steps. "You - home" If he continues home without returning to first, be ready to call him out on an appeal. If he returns to first, you then point and say "You - third".

We talk about OOO here all the time. Most of what we talk about pales in comparison to this. I've seen other articles with a bit more detail from parents and others involved, including some serious allegations of the official being discriminatory in her actions. I'll withhold that judgment as I don't know any more than what's being reported. Suffice to say, this one will be fun to track. Here's the current rule:

Would a home run count as "comparable ... accomplishment"? I read that as "Trophy for most home runs on the team," not giving the ball to a kid who hit a home run or a game ball to the pitcher who threw a no-hitter. Yes, I know a ball is an "award" and it can easily be argued that it's a "comparable ... accomplishment" and that my statement is sitting on a 4-legged stool with only 2 legs, but I'm still asking the question.