Jump to content

Matt

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Everything posted by Matt

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. You're missing the point. There is no rules basis to call interference even if they do react.
  4. 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.
  5. I just noticed I'm back to being an "Established Member." Has the ability to customize that field gone away?
  6. I can't say it actually happened, however, this would be the statutory authority: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1701-trademark-counterfeiting-introduction
  7. You're applying the equation backwards. Force is a constant in this case--it's generated by the batter. The mass of the bat does not affect how much force the batter generates, but how fast the bat accelerates. Then, as others have said, there is the issue of elasticity and restitution, which is the larger component of how this increases ball speed.
  8. Thank you, and this is the accurate explanation to what I said above (with some additional commentary.)
  9. I've gone through three Adidas Icon frames this year, all with the same set of Belgard pads, with no injuries.
  10. MLB replay guidelines state that for purposes of replay, the moment the ball touches the glove is the moment the ball is considered in possession.
  11. An appeal can be made on the infracting runner or at the base where the infraction occurred. An appeal must be unmistakable, and in this case it was, because they said they were appealing him leaving early. That is not an appeal for missing 3B. They can subsequently tag the runner or 3B to appeal that infraction.
  12. I won't say yes unequivocally, because there are other things that might come into play. If you see a late decision to slide, he has violated the rule. This is a safety rule and unless there's evidence to the contrary, a late slide is an intentional act to break up a double play. His body starts the slide before the plate but does not get down legally (awkwardness at the plate notwithstanding.) The slide is really obvious to me, so I'm kinda concerned here with those calling this a stumble--you can see the sliding posture before the foot gets to the plate. Not to be a mindreader, but he probably expected an easy run home with a properly executed bunt, then realized a play was happening and he needed to break it up.
  13. I've seen it twice, once with several players on this very offensive team (when they played more competitive ball,) so there is that... Also, watch him start his slide about two feet in front of the plate. There was no stumble whatsoever. You can see him drop his ass and flex his leg.
  14. I don't agree that this was a stumble. I think it was a late slide and subject to the rule I mentioned above.
  15. This is a force play and as such, a slide has to be bona fide. It was not, as he did not make contact with the ground before reaching the base. Thus, this is interference under 6.01(j). Not only is he out, so is the BR.
  16. And when you have a game at Copeland early in the spring, it is possible that the 1B dugout has ice at the same level as the playing surface. Also regarding Putz (the Rockpile...) Jogging my memory, and I'll have to look at video to confirm, I believe that the dugout nets are only up during NWL games.
  17. There have been errors in the rules that have existed for over a century. Wendelstedt RIM 8.4.3b (II) states that the status of the runner (forced or unforced) for an appeal is determined at the moment they miss the base, even if a following runner is put out.
  18. I can't compare the two, as I only have the Outwest one, but it's sufficient for that type of activity. However, it is the only thing I will ever own of theirs as I got it before they conducted themselves unethically with two suppliers (of which I'm aware.)
  19. Have I mentioned how much I hate FED?
  20. I'm firmly of the mindset that this rotation should not be called off in the OP until the play develops. Why hamstring yourself by removing your options before you have to make a decision? It just takes one weird thing for there to be potential plays at third and another base.
  21. Yeah, that's my question. If the game was tied, I would call off the rotation.
  22. I would say this depends on how close the members of your association communicate. If it's pretty tight, you'll have an idea of if someone likes to dodge the plate (or, less frequently, prefers to jump on it all they can.) The next thing would be how they approached the question, which might give you an indication of their motives. This year I've had: 1. A last-minute replacement for a partner who had agreed to take the plate, and I was doing a quick two-day deep clean/refurbishment of my gear on my "guaranteed" non-plate day. 2. An assignment I didn't quite understand until I found out my inexperienced partner was being evaluated, and was told he needed to take the dish. 3. My first game back from an injury that sidelined me for a sizeable portion of time. For 1 and 3, a quick explanation of the situation sufficed--3, in particular with a partner I had never seen, just needed the explanation that if I was being too aggressive on my recovery and went down, it would be easier to haul me off and keep going. For 2, it took a little diplomacy to not let on the real reason he was taking it, but it worked out in the end. If your spidey-senses are going off, I refer you to my first statement: does this person have a reputation? If so, you may want to push back or you might not (I've had several partners this year tell, not ask, that they'd prefer the bases because they had x number of plates in the immediate period, as if I didn't as well.) If not, then just take it and have a long memory. There's another point there--if you want to be on the bases because you've been on the dish a lot, asking your partner about their schedule goes a long way (what has it looked like, what's next, etc.) Then you can get a feel for if it's even appropriate to bring it up.
  23. Did you ask them? I think your increasing desire to ignore reality for shock value might have something to do with the increased cachet of someone else.
×
×
  • Create New...