SoCal Lurker

Plenty LL coaches don't know the difference between real rules and their league's made up rules.....or the "rules" they've made up themselves that no one else knows. And rules that an ump in one of their games has made up and enforced . . .

Not showing symptoms 24 hours later doesn't mean you weren't concussed. Whether or not the doctor is a sexist pig, the long-term health of your brain makes taking time off the right thing to do. Ten or twenty years ago, they might not have known better. But ongoing concussion research makes clear that your chance of re-concussing is enhanced after a concussion, and that the "minor" concussions are more serious than we used to treat them. If being off leaves you with time to kill, try researching concussions a bit. It truly is an area where caution is a wise choice. I don't know about MLB, but NFL has adopted concussion standards, as have many states for high school sports, and soccer is starting to in part becuase of publicity in the last world cup when a player went back on the field with a serious concussion. Take care of yourself. Here's the CDC link to some training on concussion awareness: http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/headsup/online_training.html

Most LL coaches won't have a clue what that means. That's why LL wants the umpires to check equipment. Reality. You need to deal with it. LOL. I have worked actual LL get a clue. Then you know the wide spectrum of LL coaches and you know why LL decided it was important to have the umpires check . . . the equipment rules are safety rules and LL wants someone who knows what they're doing to check for safety issues . . . I don't know that my son had a single LL coach who would have known what to look for to decide if equipment was proper.

To Guest Justin: At the risk of sounding pompous and tiresome, keep in mind that LL minors is a rec level where the focus should be on having fun and learning how to play. For better or worse, in many areas, the umpires in minors (especially the lower levels of minors) are either volunteers with very little training or newbie umpires wrapping their brains around the various nuance of the game -- this may be further exacerbated in fall ball. That reality means you will get strange calls from time to time -- iether because an umpire is (mis)remembering a rule from when he played (whcih may have only been a myth then, too, but was called by an umpire) or mis-applying a rule that he learned. This one could be either. Your umpire remembered that the batter cannot hinder the play and that the batter's box is not a safe haven when he has time to vacate to permit a play to be made. He did not, apparently, recall that there has to be a play to be hindered with. (Or, alternatively, his perception of the play was different than yours, and not withstanding your view that the catcher was too far to make a play, he may have believed that the batter did get in the way of the catcher and may have made a good call.) If, as I surmise, yuo were the coach, the positive action you could take is letting the umpire in chief (or whatever teh closest role to that is) know what happened -- he would be in the best place to tacfully educate the umpire if, as appears likely, the umpire is mistaken about this rule.

These are experiments. Some are going to fail and some may succeed. We can hypothesize the results, but not all results on things like this are the same as expected when the real world meets the idea. There's a reason they are trying them out instead of simply implementing them in MLB. TV is the golden goose. More commercials are more revenue for TV equals higher bids each time the TV contracts come up -- that isn't going to change. But keeping the TV bidders happy by not having games the TV bidders think are too long is critical to long term finances. (And keeping TV viewers happy so they watch is what creates ratings and creates TV bidders.) And perhaps just talking about trying to solve it makes the bidders more happy, too.

I believe Richard has previously recommneded Verbal Judo: The Art of Gentle Persuasion as a good source of how to deal with verbal encounters. Among the points it makes is that no one ever calms down because someone told them to calm down . . .

Use the soccer intepretation of deliberate handling: instinctive protection is not "deliberate."

The Angels had a similar scenario against the As: without a true starter, they used 8 pitchers. Only the starter threw more than an inning -- a whopping 3. But because of the rule, he was ineligible to get the W - even though he left the game with a lead and deserved it more than any of those who followed him. :shrug:Like many baseball stats, Ws are a bit quirky and can be misleading.

So the As protest the judgmdent call Why didn't they ask for replay review? Is obstruction not reviewable?

It's interesting, however, as the review was initiatied based on 7.13 -- and the replay team jumped to the separate issue of where the ball was. So in MLB is everything open to review once they turn it on, regardless of what triggered it?

I agree the protest will be overruled - but they won't change the rule. They WANT to give the CC some discretion on this I don't think a replay review that corrects an erroenous call is going to lead to any change of this rule. But I think what will lead to greater clarity is if a CC rules a challenge untmely and both (1) the challenge would have been upheld, and (2) the powers that be believe the CC should have permitted the challenge. But just speculating.

SS was behind the base path at the time of the pitch. Once batted, SS charged the ball, at which time, running directly towards the ball, he entered the base path. The two almost collided and the ball missed hitting the runner's foot by a couple inches. DID THE FIELDER ALTER HIS APPROACH? Yes. He had to stop his momentum on a dime in order to not collide with the runner. If IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE UMPIRE the fielder was impeded by the runner, the out should have been called. The umpire's perception of what happened may not have been the same as yours. If it was and he did not call interference because the runner was in the base path, he missed the call.

He doesn't need to hit. He just walks. I'm just exploring what's a legal amount of squat, because there doesn't seem to be any standard. I think the standard becomes common sense. As long as the stance is a legitimate baseball swing stance, it is what it is. If it isn't call your best evaluation of his "real" stance -- and if he took a practice swing, you know what it is -- don't give him the benefit of the doubt. but I agree with Mr. Ives -- this isn't a real world question. (And in "real" baseball he's likely to get his free base when the pitcher drills him . . . )

That's just sad. I think a *lot* of that goes on w/ LL. With teh new rules, I'm waiting to hear about the kids that changed schools to be eligible to play in a different LL . . . .

No!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't make stuff up!!!!! If the league wanted a stupid rule like that, they would adopt it. Sad. Truly sad. (Though I am impressed that you have 100 local leagues so that the one league that does it righ is only one percent.)