beerguy55

I can tell you from experience you most certainly are. Especially if there's literally no on left to volunteer. Also, just because your kid can do the skill doesn't mean you can coach it. Some people just "have it". I could teach to throw and catch, but it took years to learn to teach hitting....because I was never taught how to hit...I could just do it...and my hitting fundamentals, to this day, suck...but from the time I was ten til into my 40's I was a top tier hitter in any league I played in. My own kid didn't learn to hit well until she got exposed to coaches who knew what they were doing. Dads also typically have much more time to work with their kid...they may have been playing catch for five years. Now that same dad has to teach a ten-year-old who's never played a game of catch before. Or teach kids that aren't naturally athletic. You're comparing apples to washing machines. The other dynamic you'll get, especially if there's an evaluation-type scenario, is the better kids will end up together, meaning your coach-quality dads are on the same team. What you are also going to get are kids who think they are good, with dads who think they know what they're doing. My first year of coaching I had a kid who was truly a quadruple threat - couldn't hit, couldn't catch, couldn't throw, couldn't run. And as good as I was at the sport, I was not in any way equipped to help. Could be - it's a scenario I don't oppose. You don't all have to play (insert sport here).

We was nuts. Gambling has been happening all along, and most sports betting scandals of the past 100 years happened in scenarios where gambling was illegal. Gambling being illegal didn't stop anything, and certainly didn't protect anyone's lives or livelihood. Arguably it was more dangerous to those who wouldn't cooperate. (see Boston College point shaving as just one example...not to mention it was uncovered by accident, when Henry Hill - of Goodfellas fame - was arrested for unrelated charges). Legalized gambling hasn't made anything worse...it's simply brought most of the bullSH*# out of the shadow. You now know what would not have been known to the general public 50 years ago. Yes, there are risks with minor/amateur players who could be well compensated to provide information. But frankly, this is the same disparity that leads people to use PED's. You pay those players well enough, and you significantly reduce (not eliminate) those risks. Also keep in mind that the NFL's schedule was built around an efficient Las Vegas bookmaking model, including their rules to have accurate injury reports in by Thursday.

Hunter needs to walk...preferably holding CB's hand.

I really hope it's after the play. The other one would be full count, R1 steals. Ball four, F2 throws down - he might even get the runner (had it not been a walk). F2 then taps head. That's going to be more than two seconds after the ump's call. And in some cases that could be a double play. Otherwise, you're forcing the batter to tap his head as he starts running to third, the catcher to tap his head immediately after releasing a throw, or even before the throw, etc.

And there's your catch-22. The mom/dad who will "step up" is (almost always) not going to be a good coach for the kids. They may try their best, they may not even be biased, but this is not a "coach"...this is an "adult who ensures another team of kids can play ball". The kids very rarely learn good/any fundamentals. Nor rules. And the coaches rarely get the tools to succeed. Some of those coaches will improve, many won't. For every coach who figures SH*# out, learns some things, and passes that knowledge onto kids, 49 don't. And, invariably, the daddy-coach-who-didn't-want-to-coach-but-had-to-coach-because-there-wouldn't-be-a-team-or-his-kid-wouldn't-play-as-much is the coach all umpires hate and deride, as documented many times on these forums. This may be a hot take - and I really don't know what the numbers may look like - but I wonder if it's better that 8 kids don't play at all, and maybe some try again next year or somewhere else, or 15 kids get the wrong coach and learn to hate the game, hate being on a team, hate sports, or experience whatever other damage could happen.

Coaching with 14 person rosters is challenging enough...doing 18 person rosters is a nightmare. Finding a third coach isn't likely much easier.

First rule - don't say 'not to muddy the waters' and then proceed to do exactly that. It's kind of like saying "I don't want to be rude..."😁

This is a little silly. All players and all umpires will EVENTUALLY leave...nobody is sleeping on the field overnight. In fact, I'd say it's more likely that the players will leave the infield before the umpires leave, simply because almost all games end with a handshake at home plate, which invariably has all players from both teams in foul territory. I'll give you a real stupid example that could actually happen. It's a tournament...schedule is running behind, and at least one of the umpires in this game is officiating the next game, which starts in about five minutes. Both teams leave the field, but one umpire never does. The next two teams are warming up. Then the coach from the previous game comes back and says "Mr. Umpire, the runner on third left early". Hell, coach might even know this because he had a friendly chat with the other umpire who left. Doesn't really matter - it would be pretty stupid for the remaining ump to grant that appeal. But he can. Because he never left the field. I'd find it even funnier if the next game had actually started.

He's wondering the same thing while he's puking his guts out after the run his coach made him do after the game.

Perhaps, but I would posit that the "or" means it's inclusive to the definition of what constitutes the end of a half inning, and therefore the end-of-half-inning rules/conditions still apply (I'd also say, logically, that also extends to half-innings that end due to a run limit rule, whether for per inning limits, or the game score differential). That is, the end of game rules complement, not replace, the inning rules. Practically speaking, the need for both conditions at the end of the game makes sense. Be it a defensive team that decides to go have a team meeting in the outfield and never crossing the foul lines, or an umpire who decides to linger and socialize, you can't have just one of those actions open the door for an appeal, conceivably after the winning team has left the park. If the entire defense leaves fair territory and lines up for end-of-game handshakes, that should end it, even if the umpires are still around. If the umpires gtfo of there, that should end it, even if the defense is still on the infield in stunned silence at their loss. This argument could be made for any inning, not just the last. We set that condition in all other innings because we need a reasonable demarcation point to say "too late, move along". There's no reason to not have the same delineation in the last inning, regardless of where the umpire is located. The umpires leaving simply provides an additional and necessary endpoint in case the losing defense decides to not leave the field, for any number of reasons. My $0.02. I'm on no committee of authority....but if I was...

A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base... A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory... It would have to be an incredibly windy day for your scenario to develop (inanimate objects rarely change the direction of their spin in mid air, with no other force/object to alter its direction - though it's not unheard of), but if it were to come up, the rules lay it out. It is definitely fair. The interesting conversation is if the ball crossed the base partly over both territories, as the definitions don't clearly say what is ruled in practice...that is, a foul ball must be completely over foul territory....however, in that scenario, it would be easy to support a judgment that the ball never did cross over the base, and was never in fair territory. (whether you are the umpire or the coach, the asinine side of the argument is claiming that a ball that never touched fair territory, but while it was moving, spinning and changing directions three feet in the air above the base, you were able to see that one inch of the ball touched fair territory...) In short, just from the optics you want to be REALLY sure it crossed into fair territory before passing the base. The rules support a fair ball - the coach is going to argue this, in many cases - you want that argument/discussion to be about the rule, not the judgment.

Believe me, I don't buy for a minute he had no idea his friend was betting on baseball - he's almost certainly lying about that...and combine that with his choice to use his friend's account for his own bets, rather than just create his own, it's a very small leap to conclude that he was indeed betting on baseball too, and hoping to disguise it in the shared account that wasn't under his name. MLB just can't prove it.

The average bet size cannot be surmised from those numbers. There were 141 bets made on BASEBALL in that three-year window...the $700k is a sum of all the bets made on all the sports. And though it looks like he's betting basically his gross salary every year, and losing 10% of it, you can't even conclude that. There is no breakdown to what he was betting with his own money, and what he was betting on behalf of (and funded by) a pro poker player. There is no breakdown because he and his pal deleted the messaging app which contained the details, and accounting, of those bets. Of course, one does wonder why he didn't just create his own account, which would very clearly show a betting history that doesn't contain baseball...or how he could have access to his friend's account, a full record of his wins/losses, on many occasions put bets in on his friend's behalf, and have no idea his friend had bet on baseball...

I'd like to circle back to my original question. Isn't the answer B and C? Don't both conditions have to be met? The end of the game is, after all, the end of a half inning. It seems silly that a team could not only leave the infield, but all proceed to their dugout to pack their gear, and upon noticing a few minutes later that an umpire is still lingering on the field, for whatever reason, and then shout "Mr. Umpire, the runner left early!" And then grant that appeal, as half the winning team is making their way to the parking lot... It not only opens the door to stupidity...it opens it to shenanigans.

Yes, but in a different context...ie. when they can vs when they cannot. the appeal must be made while an umpire is still on the field of play. In short, both wordings same the same thing - as long as there is at least one umpire on the field they can appeal....when ALL the umpires leave, they cannot.

Isn't C ALWAYS true...meaning the answer would/should be C AND A/B? That is, the end of a game is also the end of a half-inning, so even if the umps are still both around if the infielders have left fair territory there can be no appeal?? Or does that requirement disappear because it's the end of game? I always figured both conditions had to be met. I believe the rule (if going by the letter) says "when the umpires leave the field." (grammatically, "all" is implied) I know for OBR, there was one particular MLB game in 1989 where two of the umpires were in the tunnel when the appeal on the winning run was made, and the appeal was granted.

Yeah - the problem is when people confuse immediately for instantly...otherwise rule 6.2.4 is moot. I guess how it should be ruled in the OP scenario is that pitcher needs to start the act of appealing R3 "in flow" (?) (for lack of a better expression)....I do hope most would grant at least a few seconds for people to change their mind or realize what's going on...much like "crossing the plane", leaving fair territory would be a pretty good guideline to follow. If you haven't yet surmised, I HATE that word. It's as meaningful as "as soon as possible" Well, sir, I couldn't possibly be here in less than six months Well, sir, since time travel and teleportation are "possible" you should have been here before I asked. Immediately: without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once Thesaurus strongest matches - instantly, forthwith, directly

This is an incorrect understanding of the rules, the procedures, and what was actually ruled. Simply put, an appeal is a time play. If R3 scored before the appeal at first was completed, then the run counts. There is no need for the pitcher to return to the mound to appeal...the pitcher can simply throw to third, or walk across the field and touch third base for the so-called fourth out (in reality, that would become the third out, and replace the "out" made at first base). As well, I know this is true at most levels of softball, just not sure about NCAA - she may have been able to make a verbal appeal after the third out (I believe once there's a third out the ball is automatically dead), as long as the defense was still in fair territory. Regardless, as stated, no appeal was made before the infield left fair territory, so the run stands. Even if replay covered tag ups (like MLB does) it would still be too late - so even if replay confirmed the runner left early, the appeal was made too late...and in MLB, by procedure, the team is supposed to appeal on field first, and then only go to replay if the appeal was denied....not sure how often that happens in practice.

Perhaps, but sliding it in as a bat alteration would mean that whomever did is probably in Congress, and thinks adding riders to unrelated bills is the way things need to get done.

I tend to agree - it appears to me that whomever wrote this doesn't really know what they are, or doesn't know exactly how they are used/implemented. I even wondered if maybe there is a thumb protector design that attaches to the bat rather than the hand, but I have not been able to find one. Worse yet, this might have been written by some kind of zealot who hoped they could slide this in there, for some weird reason of "I hate those things", and nobody noticed. If I'm a coach in LL I'm running this as far up the flag pole as I can, because it's plain wrong.

First - I want to clarify something I said early - I simply do not consider this to be a safety tool, as the makers are trying to market it...they're doing that to try to get around any potential rules that would prevent the sale of their product OR to marry themselves to an element of the game that might not only make their product desirable, but mandatory. I disagree with that positioning - that does not mean I believe it's illegal. It is indeed a hitting aid, first and foremost. Would I allow it? As others have said, it's no different than batting gloves. In no universe is this an alteration of the bat. Where would I draw the line...something that attaches the player to the bat - imagine a tool that forces your hands/wrists/fingers into their optimal alignment, and then locks them there...anything that would not allow the player to seamlessly release the bat. That would be an alteration to the bat, IMO. You wouldn't let someone duct tape their hands to the bat.

Well, if the hands are part of the bat then this certainly is.

In all seriousness, it's an injury prevention tool only because it's marketed as such, in hopes of getting around any potential rule issues in baseball, to get some sales. The same strap is a swing correction tool in golf. They can't make the injury argument there, and the likelihood is it would not be allowed in any sanctioned golf tournament. It's a swing correction tool, regardless of how they try to disguise it. FAQ – 9 STRAP TECHNOLOGY If they can get away equating to an elbow pad, or a thumb protector, then fill your boots. I. personally, do not agree in any universe it is a safety product, even if there are some secondary, unintended benefits.

I think you're looking for OnlyFans.

As stated above, I've seen this ruled in many ways, and it comes down to you needing to know what ruleset you're using, or what specific by-laws your league/tourney has implemented. My first instinct, based on what I have most commonly seen over the years, your ruling is wrong. I have seen all the following: Runner can touch either base ALWAYS (fielder MUST touch white) Runner must touch orange, fielder white, when there's a play* Runner must touch orange, fielder white, whether there's a play or not, unless rounding to second. Runner may touch part of white as long as long as he has touched the orange* Runner may NOT touch part of white, even if he is touching orange Fielder may touch part of the orange, as long as he is touching white* Fielder may NOT touch part of orange, even if he is touching white Fielder can touch orange on throws from foul side of first base line...runner must switch to white. Orange part of base "disappears" once touched, returning runner only safe on white* Both parts of bag remain live even after touched, for the purposes of B/R returning to first base on that play. On tag up appeal play fielder may touch either bag On tag up appeal play fielder must touch white* On tag up appeal play runner may touch either bag On tag up appeal play runner must touch white* *most common configs I've seen