Replacematt

The approved buffer shrank from two inches to 3/4 inch. What the buffer is is the area around the defined zone in which a pitch cannot be considered incorrect for the purposes of grading and evaluation.

This clause was added in 1954: "1.14 – THE BAT shall be...(2) formed from a block of wood consisting of two or more pieces of wood bonded together with an adhesive in such a way that the grain direction of all pieces is essentially parallel to the length of the bat. Any such laminated bat shall contain only wood or adhesive, except for a clear finish. [Changed from: THE BAT shall be round, not over two and three-fourths inches in diameter at the thickest part, not more than 42 inches in length, and entirely of hard, solid wood in one pitch. Twine may be wound around it, or a granulated substance applied to it, for a distance of 18 inches from the end of the handle but note elsewhere. NOTE – Approval of the laminated bat is experimental and for the 1954 season.]"

I'm digging for versions...the oldest I have found is 2000, and it was in there (slightly different wording regarding approval authority, but substantively the same.)

That's exactly the reason. If an innovator were to find a metal alloy that duplicated the effects of wood exactly and was able to produce enough bats to test and supply MLB, MLB would allow that the minute testing was done (and maybe even mandate it.)

It does, though, because of the note (which really creates a case-by-case exception.)

Since this is an OBR-based league that already allows non-solid wood or bamboo bats, I would suggest looking at (even if it means retroactively defining) the criteria used to allow those. Then applying said criteria to this bat.

I guess all those marks from baseballs came with it from the factory.

So... I've had this exactly once this season. And I did let the play go on...sort of. It was a JUCO/academy exhibition game, without video review. R1 went to the outfield side of 2B standing up, directly in the path of F4, who airmailed it over F3. I signaled it immediately on the throw, but when the throw hit the fence, I killed it. I wouldn't have done this in an NCAA game, but I felt it better to get both outs immediately than pull BR off of 3B.

No, we are using official interpretations from MLB.

Yes, that was my point.

And voluntary release can be something that is neither voluntary nor a release by the dictionary definitions.

Not in the way I'm using it. Your comment is contained in Wendelstedt footnote 220. Immediately following that, in 221 (and case play J33,) it clarifies that if a runner takes steps and stops before the pitcher makes their step, it is a balk.

Because it's really easy (assuming competent umpiring) for the offense to draw a balk here by feinting a steal of second. If that runner baits the pitcher by giving the illusion of taking off while the pitcher is lifting their leg, stopping that advance before the step to 2B means that it is now a balk.

That's precisely why it's illegal. He intentionally moved his arms into the path of the ball. It doesn't matter if he was protecting himself.

Were both trips during the same batter? Then a warning has to be issued.

I haven't seen anything, surprisingly. They've covered every play that I recall being brought up here so far this year besides that one.

Yep. Just wanted to ensure people didn't think it was an actual boundary in this system. This isn't "there are no force outs at first" pedantism.

Also not approved.

Nope...not approved. You have two jobs--you have to be able to get to 1B if the ball drops. Because words mean things, and people are here to learn...there is no working area in the three-umpire system. We are not bound by that rectangle.

No, they aren't. The difference is literally mentioned at least three times in this blurb.

No, not really. How many times have you seen the defense decide they want to confer as a result of the offense doing so? I don't think I have ever seen that. Conversely, I see the offense conferring at least once a week. This is an example of a rule that isn't intended to define, but to clarify a situation that often arises.

No. Defensive conferences are always charged.

So, we are going to ignore that the earth is not a true sphere and is an oblate spheroid. At least one foul line is not a great circle. Neither foul line is a rhumb line unless one is directly on the Equator. The more I think about this, both would be great circles if one is on the Equator.

One-quarter of the world is in fair territory, and three-quarters of it is foul.

If this is chronological order, then ejections should have been started no later than the Elizabeth coach at 1:26 going at F2.