goody14

Someone found some old footage of game 7 of the 1924 World Series. It was a walkoff win by the Senators over the Giants. http://deadspin.com/watch-newly-discovered-footage-of-d-c-s-1924-world-seri-1641710800?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow Walter Johnson is featured for the player history buffs. Umpires were: HP - Bill Dinneen, 1B - Ernie Quigley, 2B - Tommy Connolly, 3B - Bill Klem Some of the mechanics were interesting. On one ground ball, the 1st base umpire comes all the way into foul territory down by the base to make the call.

Networks... Fox has Mike Pereira ESPN has Gerry Austin CBS has Mike Carey

It would be a waste of time. Coaches, players, fans, and especially announcers don't want to be educated. Think of the times you tried to explain a rule to someone and you see their eyes glaze over. I disagree with this. Mike P has over 227K followers on Twitter doing this exact thing for football. I think having this person in the announcers' hip pocket would be a great thing. Some games they might not talk at all - but other games might end on an obstruction call and the insight would be great.

I bet He-who-shall-not-be-named is available!! In all seriousness, didn't Palermo have a role on TV at one point doing this type of work - or maybe I am completely off my rocker. Regardless, I think it would be a great addition to the broadcasts.

Runner is out. I think the trick here is if was a foul ball then the batter did not complete his AB and leads off the next inning. If the ball was fair, then the batter did complete his AB and the next guy leads off next inning. If I got it wrong, someone will correct me.

I have called this before (on a bunt attempt), but I called the kid out immediately. My thought was that if you wait for the play to be over you could have a crap storm on your hands (esp if the runner happens to get on or if there is a wild throw). I had always assumed it was a kill it right away thing, but then I read this. Did I handle it incorrectly?

I played high school baseball (could not hit a curve ball so my career ended there). Although closer to 40 than 30, I am 6'0 and 190 so I get around pretty good. I am guessing it is a mechanic crispness issue as well as possibly some shoulder slumping. Video is a great idea.

Thanks Fellas. Had a good time in my games. I was a bit over my skis (camp featured JuCo games and I have not even done varsity yet). But, the evaluators were awesome. Gave me many quick fixes to habits I did not even know I had. They also gave me plenty of things to work on for the rest of fall ball. Good experience. Now a question: I got consistent feedback that I did not necessarily look the part. I was in the right places at the right time, but in the words of the instructor, looked like an "investment banker". Feedback was that the way I stood and gave signals was very rigid, unathletic, unconfident, and generally stressed out. His worry is coaches would see this and eat me for breakfast. The feedback was so consistent, there has to be a general way I carry myself that is coming through negatively. I have about 10 fall ball games left and would like to work on this but am struggling on ways to combat this. Any ideas from experience or people you have seen on tactics to pull this around.

As I end my second season "back" in umpiring, I am attending my first camp this weekend. I am working 4 games. There is also 2 hours of indoor instruction/evaluation. It will be the first time I am formally evaluated. Minus the obligatory "don't suck" any other vet wisdom as I prepare.

I'm convinced he's got something wrong w/ his left arm ...his left hand never moves either.... His body paid the price for his hard nose play...but I am sure it was worth for the moment in 1988

At least one person was willing to be seen with me after the game last night...

Announcers did a good job on this one. Kirk Gibson jogs without moving his arms. It looks weird.

It is basically just a fancy pedometer. It tracks steps, active minutes in the day, and can even track sleep. The genius is that it has an app where you can enter food, goals, etc and it will manage it all. Or you can download other services and sync all the data between devices. Using your steps, goals, and tracked exercise, it will tell you precisely how many more calories you can eat in the day. Hit the goal and want the lbs come off.

Plus, for associations that ban items on the wrist (like mine) or if you are worried about taking a foul ball to the device...just stick it in your pocket. It tracks my steps fine during games.

I'm in and have already begun. Late July, I joined the wellness program through my employer. We get savings on health insurance for reaching daily step goals (starting at 7,000) and making better eating decisions (and drinking 8 cups or more of water per day). I have hit the step goal every day since July 26th and average 10,500 steps per day. The fitbit tracks it all for me. I augment it with the myfitnesspal app (totally free). I log everything I eat and try to be around 2,100 calories per day I just try to remain diligent to the serving sizes. Nice thing is before I reach for a snack I have to decide if it is worth the trouble to look it up and log the food. I usually decide not to bother and just don't eat the snack. 6 weeks in I have dropped 10 or so pounds and am currently sitting at 195. At 185 I will have lost 10% of my original 205 lb frame. Plus, I will save $100 on my health insurance premiums next quarter!

Lance Armstrong's doctors once diagnosed him as a lumpire...

Wouldn't matter, right? If umpires rule that F1 is the protected fielder, then once BR is obstructed by F3 the play is dead and nothing else matters since it was a BR obstructed before 1st.

Alright, alright, alright...with some help from Pythagoras, a dose of logic and some common sense, I see where I was being dense on this one. The FED line makes no sense.

My guess (granted dangerous to put myself in someone else's head) is based on statements in afaber12's post. FED just decided to take angle out of the equation and only examine the distance a ball traveled. The line is 90ft away and they are saying any ball that travels 90 ft and landed in fair territory has gone beyond first or third and is fair. People have said that FED focuses on safety, participation and simplicity - I think they are just trying to make it more simple. I think of it this way - if you drive from Indianapolis to St. Louis, have you gone beyond Chicago? Well in strict terms you are more west that Chicago, so I guess you have even though you go no where near Chicago. Same logic a ball that hits a sprinkler head 110 from home plate right near the second base cutout has gone over 90 ft and is "beyond" the base. My problem is that I learned FED first and honestly had no idea this rule was different. Another example of why this board rules.

Close. The rubber is 60-6 away. Second is 127-3.x away. so, the rubber is in front of the line from first to third. That's why it's foul in FED. It's foul in OBR and NCAA because it didn't touch outside the square. I'm pretty sure BRD has a source for this. I could not find it in the BRD. J/R does state an in-flight ball has to land beyond the square to be fair. Assuming a ground ball, that hits something in the field behind the mound (yet in front of second) and bounces back to foul ground would also be foul since it did not meet any of the criteria for fair ball. Looks like I learned something today. For the record, this might be one instance where the FED ruling makes more sense - in my head at least. But, I don't write 'em, I just call 'em. The BRD waffles on this. If the FED ruling makes sense. I would recommend walking the infield on all your games. I am 95% sure going to regret this.... I have a feeling you are just making fun of me - which is fine. But, in case there is some bit of wisdom you were trying to convey, let me say I don't understand your comment. If this is snark then move along, there is nothing to see here.

Close. The rubber is 60-6 away. Second is 127-3.x away. so, the rubber is in front of the line from first to third. That's why it's foul in FED. It's foul in OBR and NCAA because it didn't touch outside the square. I'm pretty sure BRD has a source for this. I could not find it in the BRD. J/R does state an in-flight ball has to land beyond the square to be fair. Assuming a ground ball, that hits something in the field behind the mound (yet in front of second) and bounces back to foul ground would also be foul since it did not meet any of the criteria for fair ball. Looks like I learned something today. For the record, this might be one instance where the FED ruling makes more sense - in my head at least. But, I don't write 'em, I just call 'em.

I am not seeing how you get from A to B on this one. The rule specifically states "on or beyond first or third" - if they wanted outside the square why not just say it. FED also has a ball fair that touches a base and they don't buy into the outside the square interpretation. So - my question - Why is a ball that hits the rubber and bounces back foul? I had always assumed it was because rubber is 60 ft away, 1st and 3rd base are 90 feet away. Ball did not travel beyond a base so it is foul. Are you saying it is foul because it "settled on foul territory between home and 1st (or 3rd) base" and the distance did not matter? Or are you saying distance only matters if the angle of the hit puts it near 1st or 3rd?

When the interference occurs the fair/foul status of the batted-ball has not yet been determined. The fielder is running attempting to get to the ball and is stopped in his tracks by the BR. If the ball is fair he has lost his chance to get the ball before it might go foul. If the ball is foul he has lost his chance to touch the ball in foul territory to kill the play before it might go fair. Either action is a legitimate play on the ball by the defender. I am not aware of any rule which allows for a delayed interference call based on what happens after the interference occurs. That's why I asked. What's the rule support for your contention that it's only interference if he would have a play once reaching the ball? How about a batter interfering with a catcher on a steal attempt...

The Wrigley organist is good at this as well. Leaping catch by an infielder is met with the first few bars of "Jump". 3rd base coach holds a runner gets "Take a Chance on Me" You have to be quick to catch them. Back to the OP - if you are gonna pick a Tom Petty shouldn't it be "The Waiting". A much better song than "I need to know" IMHO.

What if he is the visiting pitcher, a crappy hitter and his coach pinch hits for him? If he does not re-enter right away and pitch to the first batter, then if he re-enters later, he cannot do so to the mound. 3rd world? Sure...but I cannot think of any other scenario other than ejection (and with that you would not worry about him returning as a non-pitcher since he would not be returning).