Replacematt

It's not "some kid." It's the Savannah Bananas, which are like the Harlem Globetrotters.

That's a matter of judgment. I can see if someone thinks he is. However, since I don't think he is, this is not FPSR. However, we're now at the third time you either can't read or are changing the goalposts, I'm done catering to your trolling.

I was talking hypothetically. JFC. This is not FPSR as he was not running at the fielder.

Substantively different from the clip in question.

I think you have it backwards. C tells us when to enforce it. Otherwise R1 running through the bag five seconds after the play and with the infielder ten feet away is interference.

No, it doesn't. Can you tell me which part of (c) pertains to this? Because none of them do.

Are you forgetting about clause (c) in the rule? I think so.

That goes to my point, though. Him tracking the pitch leads me more to think he was not trying to get hit, as he was likely watching to see if it would break back over. And my undergrad alma mater was one of the direct causes of this change, so I get where you're coming from.

You should refresh yourself on Wheaton's law.

You mean he tracked the ball like he is supposed to?

I didn't take that as the point they were making. Neither "flapping" nor "moving in the glove" are in the rule.

I think that's a distinction without a difference, unless you have x-ray vision.

I firmly believe that people don't call enough balks. And enough people firmly believe I call too many.

I believe so. I haven't checked to make sure I can unscrew them and they're in the bag in the car right now, but sometime in the next week I'll look.

On turf today, so won't be using them.

Funny you mention that...when I was checking out, they mentioned they might have the version with the red and I think my reaction could not have been more instantaneous. I didn't get to use them, because the rescheduling shenanigans continued. Shortly after initially leaving my house, I got word we were pushed back 90 minutes. Went back home for an hour, left and drove 2.5 hours, then got the call we were off as I was entering town.

So, with that, we know it's not b.

Providence! My conference opener is (was? I'll get to that...) scheduled for a notoriously muddy field that more resembles the Fire Swamp. As such, I ordered a pair of backup shoes from Amazon last week that were "true-to-size." BullSH*#. Concurrently, I changed our internet/cable plan and thus, had equipment to return. With these two events, I had planned to return that and the shoes at the same time while rushing yesterday evening, as both places are in the same mall and I would be leaving this morning for the Saturday-Sunday series. Come yesterday morning, we had a switch of our crew chief. Shortly thereafter, the other member of our crew sends us an email: "Uh, the school's website now shows Sunday/Monday." WTF... The university had not informed the conference of the switch. After much, umm, conversation, we got the official word. With that, I no longer had to rush around last night and could use my leisurely Saturday to run those errands. Nestled between the cable store and the UPS store is a Skechers outlet, so on a whim, I stopped in to see if I could find these shoes for tomorrow. After walking the aisles,I wandered to the clearance section. There was one pair. Of the pro. In black and white. In my size. Marked down to $112 from $160. Less swearing today.

I think of the WS obstruction...PU (Hallion?) never signaled the runner out.

I'm really not sure about your situation. Part of me says that all is part and parcel of that play, but then I think of something like BOO where we don't send runners back if they advanced independently of the batter putting the ball in play (for example, a successful steal on strike three followed by a successful appeal for BOO.)

Definitely an opinion, but each pitch/pickoff and its associated activity is a discrete "play". So, the runner stealing on a pitch is one play, the next pitch is another.

That's not what that said...he wasn't clear in his wording, but the intent is that the umpire needs to signal that the run scores so that the defense knows the appeal at 3B is necessary. The advantageous fourth out is covered in 8-6b(9) Note. The point of 8-6b(9) is to show that appealing a following runner removes a force on a preceding runner for the purposes of appeal.

While it hasn't been said explicitly, R3 being appealed successfully nullifies their own run. In addition, if R3 were to be appealed before R1, we would not rule on R1--there is no advantageous out.

Here's why I said what I said in my comment above...if you are ejecting someone for a comment that they are directing at you, and you have to turn around to find out who said it, I'm going to have the question of "How do you know it was meant for you?" I'm not saying that the OP's ejection isn't valid (nor am I asking them to justify it here,) but being able to articulate the facts going into it without leaving out key points is paramount in a report.