dddunn3d

Shirt junkie here... I have all the shades so I don't worry about matching my partner.

He was the third dog we looked at; the first two seemed to be more interested in finding something to eat in the dog run. When we took Tucker into a run, he made a bee- (dog?) line to a tennis ball, brought it to my then 12 yr old daughter, dropped it at her feet and looked up at her as if saying "well, you gonna throw that?" That would have been enough, but when he repeated that with my 9 yr old son, it became a real no-brainer. The ex ended up with him because I was living out of my business during the divorce and the few months after. He's now roaming the wide open areas in central Texas.

Something that works for me: I take my heel-toe stance, but my front (i.e., right) front I place about six inches back from where I would with my left foot and RH batter. As I drop into my lock, I take that six inches back with a little step forward with my right foot. This little step acts to set my head in the proper position, probably by counteracting the dominant eye's signal to your brain on where your head should be. (I'm right-eye dominant.) Of course, YMMV.

Nice looking dog! He's a real gem. Found him in Cook County Animal Control; already housebroken and with a couple of tricks already learned. I figure he escaped from a nice family, got lost and then got pinched. Chicago's a really big place.

All good mechanics advice, but it should be mentioned that since you called the runner out when the defense threw the ball to 3B, you are indeed telling everyone that you saw the runner leave early and you are sustaining the appeal, even though you admit: "I had no idea if he left early or not … just didn’t see it." You cannot call something you did not see. (Well, you can, but you shouldn't.)

Similar situation, several years ago, 16U rec league, the talent more like 12U. 1-1 count... B watches a fastball travel center-cut, about an 1" above the belt. "Strike." The little darling turns his head and says "No way, that was too high for a strike." Since me even being at this game was a one-off favor for a friend of mine, I was not shy. "Oh, yeah? Let's see what you think about this one." F1 tries to snap off a bender, but like I said the talent's just not there. It does drop about 8 inches (more due to the effect of gravity, I think) and crosses the plate just under the batter's elbows. "Strike...three!" I wonder if he ever learned the lesson...

That's being kind, Rich. I tend to believe he's had a bad umpiring career, and is now being shown it.

Remember, the running lane starts half-way to first base. The BR can be anywhere along the line-fair-foul as long as he enters the running lane where it starts. Therefore, if in your example the weak hit/bunt only travels a few feet, F2 probably has fielded it long before the BR is required to be in his lane. No interference unless the BR is exceptionally fast and is actually running outside of the defined lane.

I will, if you get a real dog. No need to resort to attacking my dog (actually the ex- has him, that bitch). Besides, I'll have you know, sir, that that happens to be the best dog that ever graced the face of the earth!

J/R has been falling out of favor concerning rule interpretations for quite a while; is it the only reference material you have?

Face it, you are wrong. But, call it the way you feel.

That's why I also wrote "There are other rules that stipulate what happens next..."

All of these rule cites (6.08, 7.07, etc, etc) are all very nice and such, but EVERYONE HERE IS MISSING THE POINT. Defensive interference is succintly defined in RULE 2.00. That's where any intelligent discussion of the OP must begin: RULE 2.00 - INTERFERENCE (b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch. Does this rule have any exception concerning the batter's actions? Bailing, ducking, taking a pitch, ANYTHING AT ALL? NO! Furthermore, the usage of the indefinite article "a" (i.e., "prevents a batter from hitting a pitch") means that it applies when any batter is hindered/prevented from hitting any pitch... not any specific batter (i.e., B in the box, taking the pitch, faking a bunt, etc.) nor any specific pitch (i.e., the pitch in question, a big, slow curve, a fastball away, etc.). Therefore, when any defensive player commits an act that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch, he has, BY THE DAMN RULEBOOK DEFINITION, committed defensive interference. There are other rules that stipulate what happens next, but to deny that defensive interference has occurred because of the batter's actions/inactions is a gross mis-application/mis-understanding of the rule.

Don't make things harder than they really are: RULE 2.00 - INTERFERENCE (b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch. When the catcher reaches into fair territory to glove the pitch before the ball reaches the plate, does that action "hinder or prevent a batter from hitting a pitch?" I say yes.

RE: the bolded, underlined, italicized above... I hope you do not mean that the BU should come running into the scene yelling "No, the runner's safe, the ball's on the ground!" or some such nonsense.

Given that he said it looked like a defensive mechanism, it's not intent to dislodge, and he said he didn't judge intent to injure. This is illegal contact, but not malicious, as I'm seeing it. Definitely could go either way, depending on just how it happened. I've seen and called it both ways. In a 11U game, had a 1B just waiting for the ball while the B/R just kept on going. I didn't think it was malicious but just a kid who spaced out and didn't know much better than to keep running. Knocked the 1B back a bit and he dropped the ball. Partner called him safe but I (coming up on the line) called him out for intentional contact (8-4-2c). So I can see a basis for no ejection - but if he truly had plenty of time to stop and the players are old enough to know better, I'd prob lean more to MC. 11U play by Fed Rules where you work?

Yelling at me after a banger at first: "C'mon David, you're better than that!" My reply: "No, I really am that bad, and you know it! Why else would I be assigned to your games?"

My association in Central Florida does huge USSSA tournaments during the summer, and as happens in Florida, we get lots of afternoon and evening thunderstorms. With six fields going, it always bugged me that when I saw lightning and stopped play, no one else would. Plus, add in the TD pacing back and forth beseeching us to get underway ASAP, because there's another four games scheduled on our field, something had to be done. (Whether or not I was the cause of something being done, I'll not know, but I did try to plant as many seeds as I could.) Our association during one of our last meetings finally voted to do this: 1) When play is stopped for lightning on any field, those officials are to inform all other officials and they are to stop play on their respective fields. The site TD is also informed that lightning has been spotted and that no game will resume until at least 30 minutes have passed. 2) All officials are to leave the immediate vicinity of the fields, and convene in the parking lot (which is convienently located away from the fields). If 30 minutes pass without lightning, we return to our respective fields to resume our games. If lightning is seen before then, the 30 minute clock is reset, and the TD is informed by cell-phone as to the new re-start time. This way, all of us are on the same page, we avoid the TD's pressure to try to get us back on our field, and we also avoid that inevitable coachs' whine: "But they're still playing on the other fields." Of course, the TD was made more amenable to our policy ever since a youth football player was struck and killed by lightning this past summer, and one of the local TV news reporters interviewed him about how he protected the players in his tournaments/leagues.

Actually, no. Including mine, it's only been five during the winter.

Yes it is. See NFHS 7-4-1f. I am not going to open that can of worms but it is discussed in the ABUA link above posted by basejester. Nope, this is incorrect. 7-4-1f says: "A batter is also out as in above penalty or when: any member of the offensive team or coach other than the runner(s) interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a foul fly ball;" Notice it specifically excludes runners.

Tangential, but relevant... I'm going through the NFHS 2013 Rulebook and Casebook, and something occurs to me. 3.3.1 SITUATION S: Team A has three adult coaches. One assistant coach leaves the dugout to object to a call at the plate. During the discussion, U1 informs the assistant coach that he and the head coach will now be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. The second assistant now enters the discussion directing profanity toward the umpire or otherwise violating 3-3-1g. RULING: The second assistant coach is ejected from the contest. The first assistant coach and the head coach are restricted if no other violations occurred by these individuals. COMMENT: Each act must be judged on its own merit and it is possible that differing penalties are imposed on different people. Since in Florida restriction to the bench/dugout for 3-3-1 violations is not an option, this situation would result in all the adult coaches being ejected. I seem to recall from a few years ago that if all the adult coaches for a team are ejected, that team forfeits. However, 4-4-1 does not list this situation as being forfeitable. Scouring the rest of the 2013 Rulebook and Casebook has not revealed a black-and-white answer. Can anyone steer me in the right direction? (I plan on bringing this up during my association's next meeting if I can't resolve this for myself, and see what the consensus is.)

Me Too! Except that I was a perfect PU for a game once....

Jocko... Thanks for the contact.

Probably American Sports Medicine Institute (ASMI) in Huntsville, AL. Lots of papers, studies, etc. all pointing to overuse, but so far no actual numbers to either support or undermine the proposition. It's those numbers I'm after.