andydufresne

Drawing a line used to be an automatic ejection for me. It isn't any more. About a dozen years ago, I started telling the batter, "You can erase that line with your hand and stay in the game, or you can leave it and get ejected. Up to you." Not once has any batter elected to erase the line. When the manager comes out to argue the EJ, I can always honestly say (and always do), "Skip, I gave him an out, but he didn't want it." I can't wait for the time when a batter decides to erase it, telling the whole world he backed down. I suspect I'll be waiting an awfully long time.

He could have ordered a salad once in awhile.

What do you guys think of the cops on the field for a pushing match?

Disclaimer: THIS COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN AS APPLICABLE TO THE CORRECT TEST ANSWER! That said, I just don't understand what the NCAA's problem is with calling a balk on the pitcher for trying to deceive the runner by placing the rosin bag in the glove. They say it's not legal (else, why a warning?), but don't want to penalize it? It's in the same class as going into your pitching motion while not on the rubber--pretending something legal is happening when it is not, in order to gain an advantage. Grow a pair and make it a balk. It's a BS maneuver, and if the only penalty is a warning, then it's worth a try because there's nothing to lose. If the umpires get it right, it's "Don't do that anymore." If they F it up, you gain an out.

Every year the same thing--wasted time and money on a trip for things that could be viewed online at home in a couple of hours. Why does ANYONE have to present rule changes? We can read, and they're all highlighted in the book. There IS a better way, but there's some sort of bias against the use of off-site technology. I always learn a little something at these, but have never been able to figure out the necessity of a trip to Chicago (or wherever) to view video and handouts.

Sometimes good people end up at Shawshank.

Unless you're working south of Ft. Hancock, TX, wear a plate coat and don't worry about ball bags. If you're worried about being too hot in AZ or FL, wear a cooling vest. A friend of mine who can get almost anything within reason will find one for you if you want, but try on your own first. He marks everything up twenty percent.

The foul tip signal is like prison food: sometimes essential, but usually you can get along without it with no harm done. Use it with runners on base, or with nobody on, on strike three. Even then, most of the time it won't matter, but you're covered on the times it will.

Why do some of you think R2 on third had not legally acquired it? He was standing on it before he was put out, and nobody else was occupying it. The question is whether R2 acquired it before the interference. He ran up to the base and then stopped a half-step short of the bag. He reached out with his foot and touched the bag practically simultaneously with the interference. The umpire's focus was where it should have been--on the play. I think they simply ruled R2 had not yet reached third at the time of the interference. It certainly was too close for me to say otherwise. If R2 had been clearly on the bag at the time R3 interfered prior to getting back to the bag, the proper call would have been to leave R2 on 3rd. The time to determine whether R2's position is legal is when more than one runner physically occupies the base at the same time and somebody is tagged. If R2 and R3 are both on the bag and only R3 is tagged, neither runner is out. If R2 is standing on 3rd while R3 is between 3rd and home, and the defense tags R2, who is standing on the bag, which one of you is going to declare him 'out' because he hadn't "legally acquired the base"?

If they slapped a tape measure up against some of those outfielders' gloves.

I hope whoever replaces him embraces technology a little more, and encourages conference coordinators to do the same. The aggregate amount of time and money wasted on travel, food and lodging when attending the regional clinics is astounding--just to watch video and look at handouts, all of which we can easily do from home. The discussion that follows has NEVER been worth the expense, particularly for guys who don't work D1. I know lots of guys "find tremendous value" in appearing in person. They are welcome to continue if schmoozing is their thing. Requiring in-person attendance as a condition of working is so 20th-century. They could at least limit it to the years when the rule book is updated.

That would have been a hilarious interference call, given that it would have resulted in a hit being awarded to the batter.

I'm against it. Can't anything exist for its own sake without naming it after someone? Roads, bridges, stadia, games, fields, courts, awards, professorships, head coaches, seats....geez. It's sad that you join a community and two weeks later sh!t on the memory of someone instrumental in the community becoming what it's become. Didn't you read the thread and consider how we would feel before taking a split-second and barfing all over your keyboard? I'm sorry -- I know I should ignore stuff like this, but this post made me sad. Sad that I never got to meet Mike and also sad for people like this, who probably doesn't care. Renaming the Member of the Month award is exactly the right thing to do and even though I "won" this award before such a name change would take place, I would always associate it with Mike. I'm an administrator of another board and I'm going to post a thread there in memory of Mike sometime today. Any of you who know the board I'm talking about who are members are welcome to do the same. Edited to add: http://forum.officiating.com/baseball/97392-michael-taylor.html Well, pardon me all to hell. The original post said "thoughts are appreciated." Next time, perhaps BT_Blue could include the qualifier, "...as long as you agree" so I won't repeat the mistake of taking his words at face value to the consternation of those who disagree.

I'm against it. Can't anything exist for its own sake without naming it after someone? Roads, bridges, stadia, games, fields, courts, awards, professorships, head coaches, seats....geez.

You guys seem to be feeling like I did when I found out about Brooks. Sorry for your loss.

It's like trying to pull off a prison break during a thunderstorm!

It's not a non sequitur, it's a failure of imagination. The rounding of 1B could itself be due to OBS. As I posted here, here's one way it could happen: "Here's one way F3's OBS could cause the BR to pass R1. Suppose F3 is positioned near 1B, 6-8 feet inside fair territory, just on the RF side of the line connecting the bases. For some reason, as BR approaches 1B, F3 dashes toward foul territory, about 5 feet past 1B. The BR touches 1B and, to avoid colliding with F3 right in front of him, steps to his left. In so doing, he nearly collides with R1 and passes him." OK, I will admit that anybody who envisions F3 doing that in that situation has one helluva lot bigger imagination than I do. As far as F3--talk about your non sequitur!

All the confusion comes from trying to respond to a non sequitur. This has been pointed out already, but if the BR rounds 1st and passes R1 who had not yet left 1st, how on earth can you attribute the cause to F3's obstruction when that occurred beyond 1st, after the passing had already taken place? If the obstruction occurred between 1st and 2nd, the BR is out. Ignore the "obstruction" since it happened to a retired runner. R3 scores, R2 is out at the plate for the third out. Even if you ascribe to the ridiculous interpretation that you can get an advantageous fourth out on a play that isn't an appeal, it wouldn't apply here because the force on R1 was removed. If you want to assume the obstruction occurred before BR passed R1, it would have had to occur before BR reached 1st--R1 has not left the base. If that is the case, I have no runs scoring. R3 "scored," R2 is the 2nd out at the plate. I am protecting BR to 1st. I'm not protecting R1 to anywhere--he wasn't obstructed. He may end up being awarded an advance base after the play is over, but he isn't "protected" to it. If you rule the passing was caused by the obstruction ( a ruling I would be hard-pressed to make--how to you determine a runner is impeded from advancing farther than he should? If he was not obstructed, the logical conclusion is that he would have passed R1 even sooner than he did.) and ignore it, R1 is forced, and his out at 2nd is a force-out for the third out. To conclude that an unobstructed R1's failure to advance was "caused" by the obstruction of another runner requires tortured reasoning. "Hey, Jonesy, when F9 drops the ball, you're supposed to RUN!"

I think it should be rotate for both or slide for both: R1 only, and R1/R3. In that regard, I think Alabama has it right. I don't care for the NCAA method. They changed because some umpires were too lazy to glance at R3's plate touch. I like the slide better. It's easy, has only one umpire having (U1) to move any appreciable distance, and if somebody screws up, the plate isn't the base left uncovered. Two guys can cover three bases with ease. You don't need three umpires running all over the place. Using the PU on the bases should be for when a BU goes out.

Look at the bright side... At least you didn't have to spend many years in prison for a murder you didn't commit.

I like questions like this: The defensive team is using a nine-player lineup. The defensive team does not list a P/DH on their lineup. During a mound conference, the head coach wants S1 to replace F1 and S2 to replace F9 but have them swap positions in the batting order. a. The head coach must inform the plate umpire before leaving the field. b. The head coach must inform the plate umpire before signaling for S2. c. The head coach may not make such a substitution. d. The head coach must inform the umpire of his intention before crossing the foul line on the way to the mound. Explanation 5-5b, AR; 5-5e You know, the ones where the rule cites used as justification say no such thing (the NCAA answer is A, but all the rule says is "immediately", and B and D are both more immediate than A)