scrounge

Just from the description of the play, I'm going to assume that the ball wasn't around the feet or otherwise within a close step and reach of the fielder. If it was, the fielder would still be protected and making an initial play on the ball so wouldn't be guilty of obstructing at that point. If the runner had time to score, the ball must be well beyond the fielder. So then we're left to judge a) whether this was obstruction, b) whether the obstruction directly and immediately led to missing the base, and c) where would the runner have reasonably gotten absent the obstruction. Let's just assume for purposes of the play that it is obstruction. There is a case play where the missed base can be 'awarded' but this is only when the obstruction directly causes the missed base, such as an errant throw at 1B that causes F3 to push into the runner's path right at the base. If the fielder isn't very close to the base, I'd be extremely hard pressed to say the obstruction caused the missed base. If the runner had any time at all to get back on path, then he still has to run the bases legally. So it would be quite unlikely to save the runner from the missed base in how I'm envisioning this play. Now we're down to the case where he did return. At this point, it's judgement as to what base you protected him. If you thought he would have made it their absent the obstruction, then sure, you could award him home.

Every single scrimmage except one for me was rained/snowed/cold'ed out. First game is Monday, my partner already said I have the plate (he's the assignor around here, I'm not arguing ) and my only scrimmage, I was on bases. Hope that zone isn't too rusty.

I categorically reject the bizarre notion that I am in any way responsible or have any obligation to avoid the actions of two adults who choose to act like idiot children. Period.

Just to play devil's advocate - and not to leave my man LRZ on that island alone - let's go with the educational analogy. Do you suppose those high school kids are on a first name basis with their teachers? I doubt it. Though who knows these days - in this enlightened era, they may have all kinds of pet names for each other! All kidding aside, I totally get that first names is the common convention. And I won't refuse to give it when asked, but generally I'm not offering it up either. Back in the day in another life, I was called 'sir' on the job all the time, so I have no objection to being called that now.

We may be the tiny minority, but I'm with you. I am generally not on a first name basis with minors. I don't have a problem with those who do so, and I'm cordial with catchers who introduce themselves, but I'm generally not offering up my first name.

I just got both the New Balance and the UA Ultimate - and also just returned the Ultimate. The New Balance have a little higher heel, which I liked. The UA was too flat for me. Also, the NB looked considerably easier to clean. Finally, the UA shoes had virtually no tread on them. If there's so much as a heavy dew out there, you may be slip sliding away.

An excellent question, and not to be discounted, but don't neglect retention as well, especially for those at the 2-3 year mark. They're already in the program and that's the key break point that many seem to either leave or stay.

sounds like a SuperRat

ah, thx...I guess that's the 2nd departure we have in OH in 2 man, we have BU take the B/R all the way to 3rd on a no-one-one triple as well as rotate in R1-R3

Isn't 2. a rotation for you now?

Sounds like this is coming to you 2nd hand, I'd wait to see what DM actually said. Not that I don't believe you in any way or whomever relayed this to you, just that things sometimes get amplified in translation. Because if as you heard? That's a little disturbing. I'm not calling interference if they easily get the runner - as you said, there's no hindrance, and the rule explicitly says to ignore it if it doesn't interfere with a fielder or throw. @VolUmp: 8-4-1 g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or 1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. 2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

it's been in their manual for many years now....OH switched away from it 2 yrs ago, base umpire has runner all the way to third

Yea....if you trot out two pink camo shirts? Keep it, I'm not wearing it.

I've slowly gone the other way, reducing my colors to just a few. Here, this is a summer/travel issue only - school season uses the prescribed Navy shirt with state logo, no discretion. I used to have a few colors, not quite the rainbow that some guys have but a decent variety. The last few years, I've winnowed it down quite a bit. All I've got now is black collar polo blue, standard powder blue (my least favorite color), old style black, cream, and the recently added MLB black with grey panels (which I've worn off the diamond as well). No blank navy, no burnt orange, no camo of any type, nothing. And certainly not the red bowling shirt!

What the hell was someone thinking on that one?!? So, either B or C alone, or all of them. And since C is obviously out, the only answer possible is B. Unless they actually think C is true - in which case y'all got bigger problems than a test!

I'd add that if the juggle or drop was clearly as a result of the tag, then totally on board with safe - after all, that's definitional in the rule 2 definition of a tag. But the vagueness of the interp above and lack of clear linkage to the tag troubles me.

Now I'm not a FED basher, quite the contrary. I like FED and think they get slammed unnecessarily for many things. But....just saw this little nugget in the 2018 interpretations just released....I don't like it and don't really get it. I get - and totally support - the idea of voluntary release and the football equivalent "process of the catch" concept. But why on earth are we seemingly applying that to an already possessed ball??? It doesn't seem like anything good can come of this if applied literally. SITUATION 14: A runner is caught in a rundown between home and third base. The third baseman is chasing the runner back to third and has clear possession of the ball when he reaches out and tags the runner. After the tag, the fielder stumbles and within a few steps falls to the ground causing the ball to come out of the glove. RULING: The runner is safe. The fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity. Falling down and dropping the ball results in a no tag on the runner. [2-24-4, 8-4-2h(2)]

The MLB/NCAA philosophy makes more sense to me than the murky/now-deleted/who knows FED one in that, to me, based on the definitions, those runners are not actually entitled to those bases but merely entitled to the right to advance without a play. If these knuckleheads are so stupid that they can't legally advance before making the third out - well, stupidity should have a price. I'm fine with them clarifying that awarded bases shall be completed - but it seems to me go against the general rule 9 timing play provision of no run scoring after the 3rd out or the definition of what an award is.

Did this discussion take more than 10 seconds? Can you see the catcher's ears with a skull cap? Yes? Then in what world would that be "full ear protection"? Come on, man...

from what I read in the email today, it's just the same NFHS test that other states take.....i haven't done it yet but will in a couple weeks

Sorry, I wasn't clear the first time...the two teams have a regularly scheduled game again next week, so likely that crew was already assigned to it for some time. Now, if they were to suddenly get the flu of course....I hear it's been bad this year.

From what I read, the same teams are scheduled again next week, so they're just finishing it up then with the crew for that game.

batter's already out and the runners aren't trying to advance - what on earth did he/she interfere with? If this is a correct ruling in softball, make this Reason #427 that I will not do that sport. ETA: read too quickly to see the ball was not clearly fair yet....

these goobers again...