Richvee

Just send them back for a refund and order these Your card will get hit again but you’ll get the credit when they get the heather/charcoal mix pair. (BTW, they are hideous. I don’t know why they were thinking when they made these.)

If you really blow up the UA picture, you can vaguely see the “stripes” of dark and light grey. In person, as you can see from my picture, they don’t come close. If I walked on to a field with them my partners would say “what the hell happened to your pants!”🤣

No they are not. . That’s what threw me. They have two pleated tapered “charcoal grey” base pants. Only one says poly spandex. This “tweed” pair just says “charcoal grey”. I picked that one because I don’t like the expandable waistband, and this one didn’t say expandable waistband. I just assumed they were poly spandex. Plus, they do have an expandable waistband. You have to read the whole description (which I did not do) to find out they’re not poly spandex and they do have the EW. They claim the color matches charcoal grey pants. It’s obvious they don’t.

Right? It’s like a mix of heather and charcoal. It really looks like tweed. I don’t understand what they were aiming for here, but whatever it was, it missed the target.

Our local association meeting isn't until the end of the month. I did run into our local association rules interpreter and I brought this up he, looked at me kinda funny and said, "It's a warning". When I said "To who? The kid bringing out the prop? The coach?,both?" ..I got that funny look again. A warning is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It essentially says "You can bring props out and celebrate the first HR, after that, the next player? Coach? is ejected? restricted? My solution would be coach restriction after the first offence. Player and coach EJ for 2nd. But that's not the rule. I'm never in favor of warnings at the plate meeting. We are in NJ, where we read the sportsmanship "warning" to each team prior to the game. Perhaps just add "props" in there with "There will be no tolerance for any negative behaviour, such as taunting, trash talking, PROPS and verbal, written, or physical conduct related to race, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or religion. Such behaviour will result in being ejected from this event." Why not just add another word 😩

Leave it to FED to emphasise something that isn't explicitly laid out in the rules. Props are never mentioned in the rulebook, and no specific penalty is listed. Sure, it falls under 3-3-1 (f). Is it a warning to the kid who brings it out? Is it a warning to the coach? Is it "major" and the kid bringing it out is ejected? How about the coach? Is it illegal to put a funny coat on a kid in the dugout?

I get it. But the way the question is worded, and given the answer is "all the above", it literally says you can catch wearing only the shirt. . The catcher shall wear a body/chest protector that meets the NOCSAE standard at the time of manufacture. The body/chest protector options are: A. Traditional chest protector with a NOCSAE-approved pad attached. B. A compression shirt that has a NOCSAE-approved cardiac cavity protector built into the shirt. C. A newly manufactured traditional chest protector that meets the NOCSAE standard. D. All of the above.

I've got it wrong two years in a row. 😁

My biggest concern is FED thinks it’s OK for a catcher to get behind the plate wearing a compression shirt with a NOCSAE approved heart protector built into the shirt.

I ordered a pair and they arrived today. Be careful..I didn't read enough. I ordered these thinking they didn't have the expander waistband which I'm not a real fan of, and not realizing they are NOT charcoal grey by any stretch of the imagination. And they have an expander waistband. I exchanged them for this style . I'll have to deal with the expander waistband, and I'm hoping this one is charcoal grey and note some light grey almost Tweed looking color.

FIFY

Thanks guys. There is ways for teams to combat both these situations. What I witnessed was a team who understands the clock rules taking advantage of a team that did not fully understand their options to counteract. The base running works on younger teams and younger pitchers. All their lives playing, R1 /R3, R1 starts moving, they’ve been told “step off, step off!!”

Another example of FED confusing things by combining several provisions/illegal acts into one rule and separating them by comas and “or” statements.

I had a couple scrimmages this week at a D3 school. They're working on this and it's pretty been fairly effective. Situation R3/R1. First or second pitch to next batter, F1 comes set, R1 will will make a start towards second, usually forcing F1 to step off. R1 quickly returns to 1B. (one reset) Later in the AB, if the count gets to 3 balls, R1 will do it again, prompting F1 to step off again, or hesitate about stepping off because he knows he did once already. Yes, of course F1 could turn and throw and not violate the step off rule, but at least in these two games this week it put enough doubt in F1's head that he hesitated long enough that R1 was able to advance, or F1 would step off and run at R1, in which case R1 simply returned to 1B and ball 4 is awarded for the second step off. This team was also taking advantage of the clock not starting after a foul ball until the pitcher is on the rubber, F2 is in the box and the batter is ready. F1 would quickly come set when told "play". Now he's got 16-17 seconds he can stand there set and "freeze" a batter in an obvious attempt to have the batter off balance, or request time and use a conference (if they have any left). Does anyone think If after this standoff goes on for 12-15 seconds and at that point the batter requested time it would be a legitimate reason?

This is what I’m envisioning.

OMG…..so true.

I ws OK until that note at the bottom...Caseplay 8.4.2 Y may have something to say about that note.

So he's not winding up like this every time? Does it now become an "alteration?"

Is there a rule that doesn't allow it? Maybe you can stretch "The pitcher must stand facing the batter"? But he begins facing the batter.

couldn't the same be said of a step towards first while winding up?

Right there..is the balk. Kill it That never happened. Time was called after the start stop balk.

One step backwards, one forward with the free foot. Pivot foot stays engaged. No hesitation or alteration. Starts in a windup position facing the batter. I don't like it, but I can't see anything illegal.

Too bad he didn't have an interpreter.

Now THAT would be awkward