Lindsay

They don't call that other league the Senior Circuit for nothing...

That's when you one-up them. You may remember him from his missed call... when he nobly manned up, apologized to Galarraga, and got featured on an ABC News piece appropriately titled "Perfect Sportsmanship." That's Jim Joyce the man, not simply Jim Joyce the umpire.

I had F4 (or whoever it was) attempting a tag on R1, so I had his line established at that point. He was being chased, after all.

This is similar to the Alex Casilla play at third base from July in which R3 was declared out upon running through third base and into left field on his return during a rundown with R2 occupying third base. Assuming both runners were tagged while occupying second base, following runner B1 would be declared out as this was not a force play (Rule 7.03[a]). Braun appears to make no attempt to advance toward third base and has not passed runner R1; therefore, he is not out for passing (Rule 7.08[h]); had he passed R1, he would have been out, not R1. Braun is likely out for either leaving his baseline (Rule 7.08[a][1]) or abandonment (Rule 7.08[a][2]), an argument may be made either way, though I enjoy the OOB rationale (as soon as he contacts second base from the south side [1B side], he has three feet on the opposite side [north side] before he is technically out of the baseline). Under no circumstance, however, given this play, is R1 out for after missing second base initially, he goes back to tag and ends up occupying second for the remainder of the play. In short, no, this would not have been a double play.

Discipline (all include standard or undisclosed fines) Manager Don Mattingly: Suspension: 2 Games Center Fielder Matt Kemp: Suspension: 0 Games Pitcher Joe Blanton: Suspension: 0 Games

In regards to Campos' mask logo, the 2012 Umpire Media Guide features Tim Tschida on the cover, prominently sporting the Team Wendy pads and logo...

Remember, "new age" journalism is all about getting reads, for Yahoo! and other .coms, it's all about page views and advertising dollars. How ever they can generate buzz is seen as acceptable in modern culture; on the other hand, when an author writes a straightforward, objective piece, very rarely does that generate a comparable level of viewership. For that reason, "new age" journalists tend to take angles that in their estimation will result in the highest quantity of traffic—this is "quantity" journalist, not "quality" journalism.

It was the O's team that mentioned the delivery was legal with no base runners. The Boston team meanwhile was contemplating catcher's interference :smachhead:

If it wasn't a 1-0 game, the argument against Maddon would be stronger, but this is a very winnable contest for Tampa Bay, so I can see where the complaint about the widening of a strike zone during a no-no could come from. Unfortunately for Drake, in this situation, the pitch was off the plate.

This doesn't appear to be your garden variety backswing, however. The backswing, in the case of backswing interference, typically should interfere with the catcher while the batter's follow through or momentum is carrying the bat backwards (e.g., "through the swing"). In this situation, B1's backswing had concluded its follow-through momentum and B1 was bringing his bat back towards himself, which may be interpreted as an action that is not considered part of the backswing motion itself.

Correct, umpire interference only applies to (1) plate umpire interfering with a catcher's throw [Rule 5.09(b)] and (2) a fair ball touching an umpire on fair territory before touching an infielder, including the pitcher, or before it has passed an infielder, excluding the pitcher [Rule 5.09(f)]. Here is a video lineup of Umpire Interference and non-interference. Notice the "Umpire Collides with Fielder" as an example of non-interference. Same principle applies to an umpire colliding with the runner.

Make note of Mr. Darling's ejection mechanic here... http://telly.com/SEBRV

The blue (alternate) shirt & rain slicker (black windbreaker) is an acceptable combination, even if the slicker (windbreaker) is worn with sleeves detached.

To be fair, both pitches were in the same spot.* *Includes a margin of error of two feet. :wave:

Unfortunately, I can't find another high resolution photo of just that section; however... Undue Commercialization No umpire shall, on his own behalf or through any agent or representative, enter into any contract or agreement pursuant to which in exchange for any form of consideration, any umpire wears or endorses any form of on field apparel or equipment including but not limited to eyewear, footwear or protective equipment, while employed in his on field umpiring duties or while at any Major League or Minor League ballpark. If the Office of the Commissioner grants prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, an umpire may sponsor or permit his name, signature, autobiography, biography, biographical information and/or likeness to be used to create a personal endorsement by an umpire or for other commercial purposes, provided, however, that there is no implied endorsement by the Office of the Commissioner, any other central baseball entity or any Major League club. The Office of the Commissioner shall deny consent only in circumstances in which it determines that the commercial activity by the umpire is cnotrary to the business interests of Major League Baseball, a central baseball entity or a Major League club. Moreover, this provision shall not require prior consent for the publication or creation of an umpire's biography or autobiography or a personal interview that is contingent with Article --.

Girardi was pretty vocal about the terrific benefit of the "human element" after DiMuro/Wise. Not anymore, I suppose and especially not if the umpire, regardless of correctness, rules against one's own team.

You are correct. The blue shirt (plate) and black shirt (base) is not a permissible crew uniform combination per the MLB Umpires Uniform Policy. To save space, some umpires may not carry all items, especially on get-away day.

He should have just called that play holding the bat a la McClelland/Brett. ^_^

Upton allegedly threw equipment on the field, in the direction of Marquez. No video, unfortunately.

Pat: "You've probably been calling him Don Denkinger (den-kin-jer) all your life, but it's Don Denkinger (den-king-er)." Dick: "It's good to see Don Denkinger (den-kin-jer)."

O'Nora got it right; this play is covered by OBR 3.15:

Scioscia is misinterpreting the rule, while Barrett, Nauert & DeMuth know what they're talking about, something that should easily be supported by the League. Simply put, the RLI call under OBR requires interference with "the fielder taking the throw at first base." Konerko might have hindered catcher Iannetta's attempt, but Iannetta isn't protected by the RLI rule the way Pujols (1B) is. The "drilling the runner in the back" approach is generally a great way to generate this call if the runner is indeed illegally positioned, for the ball hitting the runner almost always (and very obviously) interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. And as hbk314 mentioned, the kicker is that Pujols caught the throw.

Good call

I've outlined it here... Seneca has precedent on his side: Bruce Froemming once cleared a press box in Duluth for "catcalls" made in response to a reversed call. Keith O'Connor ejected an organist for playing "Three Blind Mice" (1985) Tony Maners ejected an organist for playing "Mickey Mouse Club" (1988) Mel Chettum ejected a P.A. announcer for advertising an eyeglass manufacturer during an argument in which a manager used eyeglasses as a prop (1995) Angel Hernandez ejected Steve McMichael after McMichael incited the crowd over the P.A. system (2001) And he also has codified OBR (plus PBUC, though the "best" of fans like to dismiss anything they can't see as "umpiring voodoo magic"): 4.06(a) [incite fans], 9.01(b ) [authority to order club employees to do or stop doing anything], 9.01(c ) [elastic clause]. Pro umpires communicate with the press box constantly, it is absolutely no help when the press box stops being objective and starts being one of the fans. Unfortunately, and I wrote this elsewhere: "such an objective analysis for a very subjective sequence does not rest well with the sports world's popular culture of belittling and blaming umpires, referees and other officials and in today's world of Twitter, Facebook and now-now-now, taking the time to research past practice is in very low demand whereas instant results and knee-jerk reactions are the norm."