kylehutson

I could see them being useful for people whose feet don't fit in standard plate shoes (e.g., a women's size 7, or a size 15). If you can get steel-toed shoes, you're better protected.

I called a strike 3 on one of my son's friends (10U, maybe?). They looked up and said "I thought you were my friend." I responded. "I am. Here's some friendly advice. When the ball is in the strike zone, swing at it."

STOP. GIVING. THEM. IDEAS.

They may not move, but I can still attest that the Umplife straps are still *much* more comfortable than the stock ones.

Having had a better point of view than the camera did, I can say definitively that there *was* some contact. And I'm also pretty sure he knew that the batter was right there. What he didn't know was where he wanted to go to make a play on the ball.

The catcher did stumble (slightly) as he was going around the batter. The mantra I've heard is that (with the exception of tangle/untangle, which doesn't apply here), contact on a batted ball is never "nothing". Was this, then, the exception that proves the rule?

Caveat: I *think* softball is the same as baseball, but I'm no expert on that. (You didn't say, specifically, but the use of "she" makes that a likelihood.) Batter-runner gets first base. All other runners go back to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch, unless forced by the runner getting first base. So in your case, the batter-runner would go to first. R1 (the runner that started on first base) gets second. But if you had a runner on third, also, that runner would return to third.

Nobody asked. Nobody complained (even the catcher). I just want to be ready for the next time.

What is this "association" of which you speak? Here, each school contracts with their own umpires. Several of them contract out the assigning bits to others (leagues or regional 3rd party groups), but the schools themselves write the checks directly to the umpires.

Same answer though - I have no idea how much softball umpires get paid.

Where's the option for "no freaking clue"? Heck, our fees even change school-to-school

So after I posted this, I realized this game was recorded, so I grabbed the video of this play. Two notes: 1) Unlike what I remembered, the batter did move a little 2) The contact between the two was very brief, and didn't appear to alter the catcher's play on the ball Here's the video:

Exactly this. It's why I don't get too excited about it one way or the other.

Situation: First batter of the inning. Right-handed batter pops the ball straight up. He apparently thought it went back further, and just stood in the box. Catcher did, too until the pitcher pointed up and yelled his name. Catcher pops off the mask and runs into the batter as he still hasn't moved from the box. Eventually the catcher finds the ball and gets a glove on it, but fails to catch it, about 2 feet foul and 5 feet from home along the 1st base line. After all this, batter is still just standing in the box. I just called it a foul ball. Reasons for calling it INT: The catcher did

You're absolutely correct that it should be Legal or Illegal, rather than True or False, but... This is legal. I think you're looking at 3-1-4(a)2 rather than the applicable 3-1-4(b). Sanders is the Player/DH, and just for this scenario. 3-1-4(b) instead says that the role of the DH is terminated for the remainder of the game when: 1) A substitute for former substitute for the defensive role subsequently participates in an offensive role; or 2) The starting defensive player/DH is substituted for either as a hitter or a runner. 1 isn't applicable because Healy ha