LRZ

"I think this thing has been blown out of proportion." As of this morning (4/4), 1.1 million cases and 60,000 deaths around the world; in the US, more than 275,000 COVID-19 cases and 7,100 deaths; numbers continue to rise and there is no relief or end in sight.

On Monday, 3/30, PIAA announced that it is continuing to postpone the basketball and swimming championships, rather than cancel them, and postponing any decision about spring sports. I have no idea about the summer baseball leagues I work, but I haven't paid that assigner's fee yet. If PIAA can postpone decisions, so can I.

The play reads, "With a runner on first" and "R2 scores" but says nothing about other runners on base, so it sounds like there was only one baserunner. Prossibly a minor editorial oversight, or did I misread the play?

I don't work school ball, so I may be wrong, but I thought NFHS changed its notation system. Runner on first = R2, not R1?

It's a pro-active protective measure. Once can be enough. YMMV, cvatsbackr, but MadMax does college and "MiLB-level" ball, umpstu and BT_Blue do college, Aging Arbiter does LL, and I work leagues for kids from 8-18 y/o, so the perceived need runs the gamut of quality/level of play.

A little desperate for content, Gil? Or just bored?

There is a way to fold a cap to get that crease, without ironing, but I can't recall things from this morning, let alone 40 years ago.

I've been getting emails from referee/umpire sites offering inducements like sales and free shipping. As this was likely to be my last or maybe next-to-last season, I won't spend money on gear I'd probably never use. The crisis just increases the likelihood of my retirement from umpiring; basketball and soccer each have another year--maybe!

Probably, possibly in the early 1900s, which may be why the rule is there. Our resident historian, Senor Azul, may weigh in on this.

Let's refer to the actual rule for the answer to your first question: 6.01(h)(1) [this is type 1] and (2) [this is type 2]. In part, (1) states, "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction." (2) states, "If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

In the youth leagues here, I think pitch counts are accumulative, not just for that game. A pitcher comes in and is near his maximum, and throws a lot of pitches (deep counts, foul balls) to one or two batters. Although I don't work NFHS, I think PIAA has a 100 pitch per calendar day, including doubleheaders, where (as I understand the rule) a pitcher, after pitching in the first game, can come in during the second game, and his pitch count continues from the first game. But I could be wrong, as I typically don't get involved in pitch counts, letting the coaches deal with that.

At the levels I work, application of the rule would conflict with pitch count limits.

If LL wants umpire uniformity behind the plate, it can employ electronics. Oh, you mean someone has already suggested that?

You know the clichéd definition of insanity, right?

Does the Players Association have anything to say about implementing the automated ball/strike system?

For basketball this year (I expect something similar for baseball), PIAA has amplified its pre-season statement about crowd control: It is a necessity to have a game administration representative to meet with the officiating crew. This meeting will allow for communicating the expectations of each group. The contest officials are there to manage the contest, which includes the players and coaches. It is the expectation that school administration will manage the student body, parents and all other spectators. Game administration should be proactive in crowd supervision and control. Administration should address inappropriate spectator behavior before it escalates. Spectator behavior remains a critical concern. Too often, spectators are using abusive language toward coaches, players and officials. Spectators are also approaching the court, team areas and locker rooms – places that used to be "off limits" – to confront participants. Game administrators must create and follow security procedures and support efforts to have offending spectators removed from the premises. Proactive policies lead to fewer problems. It is the game administrator's ultimate responsibility to provide a safe environment for coaches, players and officials. Do not wait for the official to point out the problem. Good luck with that.

Yes. It is an irritant--minor to some, not to others. Even if it were considered minor, what's the harm in locking old, inactive threads?

No skin off anyone's nose (as my mother used to say) if threads are locked after the passage of some time. Zombie revivals are irksome. I may not be able to address the top of my social media concerns list, but a fix to this one is relatively easy. You know, kinda like "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

No need to make the lock-up too quick. A year or maybe six months, I would suggest: there is a difference between killing a thread by cutting it off too soon and locking an "already-dead" zombie thread to stop it from coming back to life.

If it doesn't happen all that frequently, then no harm would arise from time bars. Locking an old thread would only prohibit new comments, not the thread's availability. Search function? We might not know when or how often people use it, but we see when they don't, so this is, for me, an unsettled factor. Besides, the answer to a question that may have been correct in 2012, for example, may no longer be correct in 2019. Obviously, I'm in favor, in part because there is enough dross on the internet without adding more: all too frequently, zombie threads are resurrected by posters who merely add their 2¢.

Is it possible (or desirable) to have threads locked automatically after X years, so they can't come back to life for new posts? Old threads can contain out-dated information, right? And why should someone have to sift through a lot of possibly irrelevant posts? If an issue comes up that was discussed years ago, start a new thread, with current information.

It's not long enough. Wear it on the forearm, as Scott demonstrated, and it does not cover the wrist. Wear it further down, on the wrist, and it would not cover the forearm. I have football forearm guards that do the trick for me--and they come in pairs, not singly.

One's "past is never dead. It's not even past." --William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

I am so thankful that this will never filter down to the levels I work--at least, not in my lifetime.

No, thank you. Personally, I don't like the patent leather look, for belt or shoes. IMHO, YMMV, etc.