Jump to content

Matt

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

Matt last won the day on September 22

Matt had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Matt's Achievements

1.8k

Reputation

22

Community Answers

  1. Matt

    Gausman's "set"

    This is simply a case of us seeing different things. I see the leg continuously moving up until the last one, then I see a stop.
  2. Matt

    Gausman's "set"

    I wouldn't have even given this a second look. He never stops when bouncing, I have a clear stop before the pitch...am I missing something?
  3. Yours truly was also involved in (actually, more as a nagging mayfly, to borrow MLK's analogy) some of those conversations during the early part of the past decade. I have reached out to get clarification on the NCAA enforcement.
  4. ...but not to you, lest they go over their monthly data allocation.
  5. You are incorrect--the pitcher does not only get one move. He gets one move to come set. If he's not coming set, it's not a violation of 6.1.3 to move multiple times.
  6. Matt

    Ruling

    How did the idea there was no IFF get mentioned?
  7. "...Because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” I would have to hand my education back if I did not utilize this quote in this perfectly relevant and relatively unimportant conversation.
  8. Why have the official do anything regarding suspensions if PIAA reviews all of them and makes the decision anyway? That sounds like an unnecessary step that can lead to conflict.
  9. It's very possible your leadership isn't as knowledgeable as some here. It's also possible they want that due to particular things germane to your area. Not caring about being liked isn't an issue of interfering with your aspirations...it's a necessity. Trying to appease that desire for affirmation means that there are parts of your job you are not completing. It's not that you have to be unlikeable, but you cannot put effort into being likeable and perform this role at the same time. Keep in mind that in most cases, utterances towards you are impulsive and only noticed by the utterer if you respond. It's often not about you, just them. Also, as said before, there's almost never a reason to interject in conversation between members of the same team--you'll get accused (often with merit) that you're looking for trouble. I can think of one example I've had that's an exception, and the situation is very similar. VT had a traditional coaching staff, with a manager, 3BC, and 1BC, with their dugout on the 1B side. I have come very close, but not quite, to dumping the HC and/or others on that team in multiple situations. HT pitcher was doing something they didn't like (I don't remember what it was) and it was obvious that they didn't agree with my non-calls. 3BC would say things after a pitch regarding it, but I ignored it (hint, hint.) The next inning, he approached me as he was coming out and asked if he could ask a question, to which I responded in the affirmative. He asked if it was a balk if the pitcher did (whatever it was they thought he was doing) and I replied that it was. He then stated that the pitcher was doing that, to which I told him that I did not have him doing that, and that the question had been answered and now had turned into a discussion that was over. I turned around and walked away. Coming in after that half, someone in the dugout asked 3BC from across the field what I had answered. He said, "He said it's illegal, but he's not going to call it." I immediately got the HC's attention and did the lineup card trick (which I hate, because I want people to see the bullSH*# that's causing it.) I said, "Brian, what he just said I answered was not true." Brian then asked me why I was paying attention to his team and going into his dugout (which I expected.) I told him that he was going to hear about it, think that I had said it, get pissed off, and then both our jobs would be harder--it was just a matter of making life easier for both of us. The point there isn't to intervene in conversations between teammates--that's the only time I can recall ever doing it. The point is that although I was offended (and I don't use that word lightly) that 3BC would say (in so many words) that I said I wasn't going to do my job, that had nothing to do with why I took action--it was to keep the situation from starting a fire from that spark. Had I approached it from the mindset that I was upset about it, it would have made the situation worse. If the only reason you don't like what a participant is doing is because, well, you don't like it, it's generally not a good enough reason to do something.
  10. You're missing the point. There is no rules basis to call interference even if they do react.
  11. There is no force increase at the origin. It's defined by whatever the batter puts out. The mass of the bat decreases proportionally to its acceleration. The force imparted on the ball is reduced linearly by reduction in bat mass, but increases exponentially by increasing bat velocity. Thus, more force at that point.
×
×
  • Create New...