Jump to content

MadMax

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    224

MadMax last won the day on February 20

MadMax had the most liked content!

About MadMax

  • Birthday 06/13/1975

Profile Information

  • Location
    Everywhere & Anywhere, USA
  • Interests
    Rally racing, Snowboarding (instructor / tech / barnstormer), Soccer (still play it), Hockey (working toward being a linesman), Baseball (umpiring, obviously), Architecture, Restorations

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    the Vultures
  • Occupation
    Designer / Fabricator
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    U18 – NFHS, mNFHS, mOBR; NCAA / NAIA; MiLB -level; Independent Pro / College Summer
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    ABUA (umpire.org)

Recent Profile Visitors

25,960 profile views

MadMax's Achievements

3.8k

Reputation

9

Community Answers

  1. I do have to hand it to Honig's on this topic. Even when Dick still owned the business, they were known for splitting frame from pads, and selling them in any combination you wish. Makes much more sense, and is much more appealing and effective to a customer than buying a frame with token, garbage pads because the manufacturer is compelled to stick the cheapest, most pathetic pads on their frames to sell in retail spaces. See: Diamond iX3 (aluminum), pretty much any Wilson, etc.
  2. It looks really nice, and cohesive, and that you (and your team) put a lot of effort in... but I have to frankly say, it's a missed opportunity. I count... 4 spots / issues that, if attended to differently than just replicating what it was, would make that CP an absolute dragonslayer.
  3. Quite. Its strength lies in its density, and its main allure is the bespoke / commissioned nature of its construction. CeCe would actually make this for you, to your dimensions. There’s no “second impact”, which results when the CP is worn loose, or not conforming to you, and the impacting energy contacts the CP, driving it like a knockerball against your body. This was one of the chief shortcomings of the Force3 UnEqual V1… it was produced “one size fits all”, so many would wear it loose. Then, it lacked the density of the Carlucci, instead relying (solely, in the V1) on the Kevlar for energy absorption. This is a failure to (fully) understand how Kevlar functions. Ted Barrett was a champion bare-knuckled boxer, and an ordained pastor/minister. His trust is in Someone Higher, and I’m sure his tolerance of an impact is much different than many of us. On that theme, I think these latest generations of people – not just umpires, specifically – are way too soft and sensitive. Pain management is part of the game. Enduring and overcoming it is part of the success. We’ve fostered an entire generation (or, I can argue, two) of people whose only “pain” from activity is sore thumbs. We should absolutely employ technology (ie. advanced materials, construction, and fit) to reduce pain, but we cannot continue to tolerate unrealistic expectations of “no pain whatsoever”. The entire reason I bought a Schutt AiR Flex I as my first “real” CP is because I had used and trusted a set of Schutt shoulder pads for football, wherein I was a wide receiver & kick returner. I wanted the sleekest pads I could get. Besides, I had also been a catcher, and a goalie, and wanted the lightest, most ventilated gear available. My expectations have never been failed by any of the three Schutts I’ve owned & used ( AiR Flex I, II, and D3O -equipped XV). They’ve allowed me to wear a Large shirt on plate _&_ bases, as well as a “true” -sized plate coat. 44 Long. Fits perfectly, and hands down the best ventilated CP on the market. Is a Schutt perfect, or ideal, for every umpire? No. But is it itself capable at the Major League level? Absolutely yes.
  4. No. On a play like this, the Batter is now a/the Batter-Runner as soon as he’s batted the pitch into play. Any INT he commits (upon a fielder) is defined under “INT by a Runner”, no longer “INT by a Batter”. I have to qualify that “any INT” because on the matter of a batted ball touching him, his only “safe haven” is the batter’s box. If he touches the batted ball outside of the box, he’s guilty of INT with a ball by a Runner prior to passing an infielder. The only other exemption he has is tangle/untangle, but as I mention in a parallel thread, that threshold passed on this play.
  5. As an umpire, I just want the compulsory “shall” removed from the (unnecessary) rule. I don’t tell God how to dress. If the Fed cannot be bothered or burdened to have a NFHS representative at each game, much less an oversight review board, and instead deigns the umpires (specifically the UIC) as “final authority” on such a range of issues as equipment compliance, player safety, weather, lights & playing surface conditions, keeping “everybody in the dugout” (while still allowing any player to be added to the playable roster at any time; my absolute favorite contradiction), etc… but will not allow said umpires to decide what to wear??!! Sure, I’d be happy with leaving it to the states to decide. You just know that half of the states still clinging to navy as the compulsory color are doing so solely because it’s in the Fed Rulebook. Remove that line, and that takes the rug right out from under their stubborn stance.
  6. Heh… Props & Orchestrated Celebrations, anyone? 🫣 Oh! We’ve had mid-season (re)interpretations recently! Within the 20-second action clock rule, there was an “adjustment” made regarding throwing to 2B. While a throw away from the bag (2B) (still) isn’t a Balk, it needs to be judged as to if it was a valid play on the runner; if not, it’s a (charged) Reset. FWIW, if I was calling this play as PU, relieved that another colleague encountered this before me: OBR (non-professionals; ie. kids & adults) – I’m calling INT on the BR; the tangle/untangle threshold has passed, and the throwing motion is part of the act of fielding. NCAA – I can’t put my mind in that space that I can definitively claim I’d call it differently / correctly / incorrectly. According to how the rule is written, that PU applied it according to the terminology of the rule. NFHS – I’m calling INT, just as OBR. Again, the tangle/untangle threshold has passed, and as has been pointed out, the BR chose to go in front of the fielding F2.
  7. Therein lies the challenge. Unlike OBR or NFHS, with their manuals (plural) and casebooks (plural), NCAA leaves little to “supplemental interpretation”. A long-standing D1 umpire stated – “If you want to see a rule change, enforce it as written.” This lends to the source of (most) of the Rules, a conclave of/for the coaches themselves. As I (re)watch the clip, I can’t help but remark, “Yup, he (PU) is interpreting/ applying the rule as written.” And, it is extremely tough to retract a “that’s nothing” safe mechanic, from the immediately adjacent PU, especially when it’s repeated 2-3 times.
  8. I’m shocked that California is even allowing eye-black to be applied at all, what with it causing cancer. According to California, everything causes cancer. Although, I’m fairly certain some teenager’s family lawyer will defend their client in a hearing with… “Your honor, James believes that the protuberance beneath his mouth, that many others call a “chin” is, according to him, his nose. He’s maintained this self-identification since early childhood, your honor.”
  9. It’s because NFHS is heavily dependent on NOCSAE to set “clear & concise standards” so as to – pay attention to this – mitigate potential lawsuits. Oh sure, they can promote them for “fairness”, but at the end of the day, when the “rubber meets the road”, and a litigation review is conducted as to why Teenage Timmy got injured in this game, chief among the reviewed points are: Was the equipment school-supplied or user-purchased? Was it NOCSAE-approved, if required? Was it allowed by the “governing authority”* (pay attention to this carefully) Was it worn or used in an approved or codified manner? The starred * point is where we (umpires) are in dire jeopardy, because the NFHS Rulebook codifies (deifies) the umpires (the PU, specifically) as the UIC and NFHS Representative. All it would take is for one… just one of the member manufacturers of NOCSAE’s coalition to brand/package the wrist card as a “belt card”, and the entire argument would be defeated. But no one has, and that inevitable NFHS Review will query, “So you had an incident where a batter was HBP in the waist, and it hit the wrist card that was… well will you look at that, worn on the belt. Improperly. And the umpire awarded 1B (or, conversely, he refuted the award), and you, Coach, are protesting?” The NCAA puts specific language in its rules for competitiveness. The NFHS puts specific language in (or omits it) to mitigate liability.
  10. How/why would he do that, considering that his mask is a 1-piece, rather a challenge to get off, and something most HS catchers have been … conditioned … to jettison as soon as possible. Throw his mitt at it? That’s more believable.
  11. So even in @Little Ott’s proposed situation, R1 ain’t scoring. At best, he’s at 3B. This Time-of-Touch/Infraction occurred when R1 and BR hadn’t yet arrived at their destined bases.
  12. Nope. It’s a 1-base award… on a pitch. Detached equipment penalty is: On a batted (fair) ball – 3 bases (if detached equipment is used to catch a foul fly ball, the penalty is simply “not a catch”; Batter returns to at-bat with a strike to the count as with any (other) foul ball) On a thrown ball – 2 bases On a pitch – 1 base So, your scoring of R1 is wrong. Additionally, awards don’t compound. For this, we look to the lodged ball rule. On a pitch, if the ball lodges in the backstop (wrapped in netting, goes into a padding crease, etc.), it too is a 1-base award. If that pitch is Ball 4, then BR’s award is still 1B. So for a forced runner, because he’s forced to advance by the Batter becoming a Batter-Runner and awarded 1st Base on Ball 4, the award is the same. So, in your scenario, R1 would be awarded 2nd Base. Now, this would matter if you have an un-forced runner. If, in your situation, you had R2 and/or R3, and no Force on, then Runners would advance 1-base as per the award of a Detached Equipment violation. Where this Keep-the-ball-Live vs. Kill-it comes into play, on a pitch, is in an example like this: – R1, R3 (outs don’t matter). Ball 4 is pitched in the dirt, and the ball starts heading away from the dirt circle. R3 makes a break for Home. F2 throws his mitt at the ball to stop it, does so, and retrieves the ball, readying to scoop it to the F1 covering the plate. The PU should point at this and call it as detached equipment. If the F2 merely stands there, R3 scores with no play on him, and R1 now on 2B and BR on 1B, then there’s no (additional) penalty (a PU should call Time at this point, acknowledge the violation, and change the ball). If R1 had reached 3B and/or BR had reached 2B (additionally), then the penalty award has been satisfied, and the bases achieved are a bonus. If, however, R3 was put Out on the play, then PU kills the play (“Time! Detached equipment (on a pitch). You (R3) score! You (R1) are there (2B) and you (BR) are there (1B).”) There is no compounding of awards.
  13. Don’t it, though? We can’t seem to get rid of the damn color. … in fairness, navy’s not a bad color. My entire crusade is to purge the compulsory aspect (“it shall be”) from the NFHS Rulebook, and make it marginally optional.
  14. The Fed Casebooks routinely pose “third-world, worst-case situations”, it seems. You read this, and are left bemusing two things – “Aren’t these umpires trained??”, and “So this is why they deify the PU as UIC, and all (his) rulings are final??” The reality is, there are umpires pressed into service, almost on an ad-hoc “here, wear this shirt, and track pants will (have to) do” basis. That’s how widespread and remote these HS games go, and how dire the need for umpires is. Sure, there’s a need to sort out the ramifications of some “umpire” inadvertently, erroneously, or unnecessarily making calls, but it seems the adage of “common sense and fair play” is often lacking in a lot of Fed manuals. This sort of scenario is not without precedent in the other rule sets. Why the heck was a U1 calling Time during a pitch – because he “Couldn’t see” (into the setting sun) – and How could that crew justify taking the ensuing home run off the board???
  15. Nope. Nope-ity nope-ity noooooooo. The Force3 Defender would not be financially viable with the outer frame being aluminum, and would be impossible if the inner (foundational) frame was aluminum. It has to do with the welds, and the amount of force that those welds are experiencing while the springs and shocks are being activated, loaded, and released. Steel cannot easily weld to aluminum. The very parts that comprise the shocks and struts, and hold them in place, are steel. Of course, those parts have to be welded to something, so that rules out aluminum right there. It has to be steel. In fairness, the outer frame is fastened to the mounting plates on the inner frame, so it could be aluminum... but why? The risk would be that the much stiffer aluminum would stress its welds, and potentially rupture them far sooner than the steel version, while the springs aren't even being engaged. Remember – catchers abuse their masks by tossing them on the ground, dropping gear on them, letting them fall off the bench, aside from the routine abuse they experience by impacts. For this reason, aluminum catchers masks never took hold in the market... and Force3 is a catcher's company first (rightly so)... despite being started by a former umpire. Why's that? Because who squats on the MLBU "Exclusive" Contract??!! Yup. Wilson. My canned answer, as usual. If that outer frame was going to be a lighter metal than steel, then titanium would be the next viable option. Microfiber -lined pads? Yeah, that time has come. Leather has no performance or functional benefit over microfiber, save one – abrasion resistance. If an umpire's mask is not to ever hit the ground anyway, then why not offer black, tan, grey (and navy! ha!) pads with microfiber lining?
×
×
  • Create New...