scrounge

Ergo, under Fed I'd have this as a lodged ball. I'd say that's definitive

Silly I concur .... but we have to make sure they're not wearing jewelry, ....what's the diff? At least there's a plausible safety-related reason for no jewelry...no one's going to get their facepaint caught on something sliding into a base.

I will take the classic, weasel answer of "it depends" If it's 13U or under, time-limited tournament ball, not super high pressure or anything, I have no problem doing 4 games. Maybe even 6 if I haven't done much the day before. If you're looking at 1.5 to 2 hr games, then 6 to 8 hours - WITH proper food and drink and breaks - is entirely feasible. Now, older kids, higher competition, longer games? Probably 2 or 3, especially if it's later rounds where the stakes are higher and the emotions even more so. I owe it to myself and the participants to maximize the chances of being in top form. I've done 4 games in a day before for U18 tourneys, but only in the early rounds. More than a day or two of that and it's max of 2 on later days. This is one of the topics where your age, condition, context of the participants, etc., makes an enormous difference. There simply isn't a fixed answer - and anyone who deigns to say there is and that anyone who disagrees is lazy or putting the integrity of the game at risk for a paycheck, whichever side, is simply an arrogant fool.

Unless your state has added their own rule, they sure are. And for a pitcher, it just comes under the existing, if you judge it to be distracting provision. Unless he uses mirrored paint, I'm not messing with it. They want to look like clowns, have at it.

I wouldn't get super-duper-OOO on uniforms, as long as they're close. Heck, even players don't HAVE to match exactly on uniforms. 1-4-1 says uniforms of all team members *should* - not shall, but should - be of the same color and style. If someone gets blood on a uniform and the team pulls out a JV jersey or some older style that's close but not exactly the same, I would hope none of us are going to quibble.

Yea, doesn't sound like you let too much go. If he was quiet and not making a scene on the first but just venting, ok, whatever, it's his opinion. The second, absolutely warn but unless he was particularly obnoxious or there was other sniping that drew a warning, I wouldn't restrict/EJ at that point either. Frankly, as rats go, this comes across as kinda mild.

Really? Isn't this the kind of empty, personal, silly attacks that have no place here?

Isn't F1, by his abandoning any attempt to voluntarily release the ball and removing the ball/glove, admitting that the ball is indeed lodged and he cannot dislodge it? Right at that point, I'd argue that is a lodged ball. The fielder cannot make a play or remove the ball so he resorts to taking the glove off (note: I no longer use the term 'detach' in this context) and throws the ball/glove as a unit, precisely because it's lodged. It may become dislodged at some point, as all lodged balls eventually do, but that seems irrelevant to the play.

Yea, back when I was in the Army, I got out because there was NO WAY I could ever imagine retiring. It was just too far off. My 20 years would have up last year @#$%@##@. So if I wouldn't have been an idiot, I'd be retired and officiating full-time now. Alas, I'm a cube rat as a financial analyst. Luckily, I've been able to pretty much do 7-4, with a moderate amount of extra work at home when needed.

Yea, I guess you're right. Certainly easier to explain, for the obvious reasons.

Agreed I was pretty sure you would but there's scrounge. So maybe scrounge will stop thinking detached equip will agree too. I stand by my post. I say it's still using detached equip and a 2 base award. No, it's not using detached player equip to *stop* a live, thrown ball, but it's using it to *make* a throw. Call it detached equip, call it lodged and then dead when the player detaches the equip due to inability to dislodge the lodged ball, whatever. Same result, same play, same real spirit of the ruling...2 bases. EDITED TO ADD: I would agree, though, that the more straightforward and probably better way of describing this play is that it is lodged in defensive uniform or equipment. By detaching it, the defensive player has given up trying to make a play and admitted that it is indeed lodged.

I dunno, once the player intentionally takes off the glove and throws the ball/glove unit, I think it's lodged and use of detached equipment. Granted, it does become unlodged at some point - two feet into the throw, three feet, who knows - but does it matter? We have a live, thrown ball being touched (instantaneously at time of throw) by detached player equipment. Conversely, why reward the defense for the inability of a fielder to make a voluntary release of the ball and throw out the runner?

I agree with you. Note: nothing in this agreement precludes you from also being stupid

You know I have run a few Marathons in my 20's. Unless you train really hard you will also run into a WALL while running it.

That's how it looks in my Firefox, looks great. Though my first reaction was "who died?".

We're not supposed to - and I never do - carry one for a school game, but for an adult or youth/travel/rec game when there is often no trustworthy game management? You bet your butt I'm carrying my phone on me.

From the looks of MANY of my partners, not too damn many...

It was within the rules. That's reason enough. Just because you "think" he would have/could have scored without the contact doesn't make that a bad collision. FWIW I would like to see this play taken out of the game, but that requires a HUGE committment not only on the part of MLB and the players assn, but also for the fundemental training of every participant on the field, including the umpires. Catchers would no longer be able to "set up" 10 feet up the line, runners would be required to slide or avoid (or some such combination of variables). And there would STILL be those trainwrecks where everything and everybody arrives at once. Would it really be all that big of a change? All these players grew up as kids not being able to do it, they all were in high school and couldn't do it, those that chose to go to college couldn't do it. They'll adjust, and adjust rather quickly.

Invoking Brendan Shanahan's inconsistent, bewildering rulings is EXACTLY why I do not favor some kind of after-the-fact, "I'll know it when I see it", outcome-based review. How do you define head-hunting? Is it based on if F2 gets hurt? Malicious is ok if the runner is 'going for the ball' or whatever criteria but sometimes isn't? Would the Posey hit be head-hunting? The heck with that, just align with the NCAA code I say. These people, these assets, are simply too valuable, it doesn't add to the game measurably, baseball will go on just fine without it.

If you've already got a great relationship with both coaches AND you've already got a solid, established reputation in the league as a good umpire, yea it's not the end of the world to say this VERY rarely. But failing that, 'manning up' as you say will be very damaging. It might be ok today - but what about that tough game next time, when the coach is coming off a 4 game losing streak and worried the new AD is just looking for an excuse to get his guy? This is his job. Unless you've already got that solid, established reputation, you're just opening yourself up to "I thought you were going to get better" or worse.

I still say nothing as well

I might say "that's only strike 2" softly to the catcher. If they're under 10 yrs old, that is. Otherwise, unless you accidentally said "2-2" before that pitch (and even then, why didn't they correct you?), too freakin' bad. They should pay attention next time.

Interesting question....probably wouldn't be the end of the world to have a mid-game get-together. They might have too much in their heads if you just do a post game but more than one or two breaks seems excessive.

I'd agree with those who say that it's probably best to just let him handle it. Unless it's egregiously wrong, even if he's got it a little mixed up it's not worth jumping in. And if for whatever reason you do come in, shoo the coach away and discuss it with just you two, don't disagree or correct him in front of a coach. That way you two provide a united front and it gives him a chance to explain the final ruling. Or, better yet, tell him that it was your call and your job to explain it.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, DO NOT CHOOSE MICHIGAN!!!!!! Unless urine-colored clothing appeals to you. If so, have at it! . . . . . . . Ok, serious answer, Meatchicken...er, I mean, Michigan is a national brand and especially strong in the Midwest. It's also - as I'm sure you know - pretty expensive, even for in-state. If you're set on staying in Michigan - for whatever incomprehensible reason - then that would be a major factor in favor of UM. Plus it's strong throughout the Midwest. But the value of that name isn't limitless. Personally, I'm just not a big fan of taking on serious debt at the undergrad level. Frankly, I think it's not as important to chase 'brand name' at the undergrad level as it is at the grad level, if that's a possibility down the road. But if you can make it work financially without carrying a massive debt (ideally no more than your first year salary) then I'd think about UM. Oakland is a fine university as well, well-respected in the Midwest. If you see yourself settling in the Southeast or need more money in the short term, then that could weight the FL option more. You'd certainly get to make money umpiring nearly year-round if you'll need the money. Either way, good luck to you. Except on Saturdays in the fall in case you choose UM. In that case, screw you! Besides, everyone knows that Ann Arbor is a slut.