beerguy55

There are "cups" for female athletes - typically called Jills. And in any situation where a male would wear one, a female should as well.

Jesus Christ - when I played Little League one bench player every game was assigned to trying to ascertain the opposing third base coach's signs. The player who was on/at second base would say first name for fastball, last name for curve...and if possible, point the direction of the target. Our catcher's were taught to be deceptive with the target...and to give false signs...while flashing a "one", the other hand was on the left knee...or on the ground...and that was the sign. As a coach, I'd let the other team figure out my bunt sign...and then add an "indicator"...lost count the number of teams I had F3/F5 playing halfway in to have a ball driven past them. It's part of the game, and LL is the perfect time to figure it out. They're old enough to add that element to the game. For the last two years he played in Atlanta Greg Maddux called pitches based on how he caught the throw back from the catcher.

Like I said...it would have to be a scenario where he had to stretch far to the right, and maybe even brought him to the ground after making the catch...something that would put him in a position where there's just no chance to get the next runner going home....even if he could muster an attempt.

Rarely, but not never. It's certainly lower risk with two out, because if they get the batter then it's moot - but the same principle really applies...you're banking on a bad throw to first base....or even a mediocre throw...and potentially a little bit of hesitation from F3.

I'd have to see the play...it would have to be something like this for me to score both: Slow roller to F6 R2 (Bobby Witt, not Kyle Schwarber) is in a dead sprint and rounds third and heads home without hesitation as F6 bare hands the ball Throw causes F3 to stretch to a position (or even fall) that would have made it impossible for him to successfully fire home (eg. if there was only one out before the play started) Not much different than the play at the end of Major League.

I'll go one further. The batter? The manager? ANYONE on the Mariners saying, "isn't that ball four?" I suppose PU can (sort of) save face by saying he had it as a strike, but gave no mechanic due to the balk call...

He missed it, for whatever reason. Maybe he saw the throw as happening before the batter leaned over. Could be myriad reasons for not getting it, but it's NOT because this isn't INT at the pro level. It is, and this kind of play is called INT just as often as it isn't by the pros... I've seen more innocuous batter action called INT by MLB umpires.

Not the same...the catcher was making a throw in the second scenario/OP. Just because he got the throw off, and in the case above actually got the runner out, doesn't mean he wasn't hindered/interfered with...he was simply (as a professionally skilled athlete) able to adapt to the adversity and make the play anyway. As I said earlier, if you are an NFL wide receiver and the safety has his arms wrapped around you before the ball arrives, and you still manage to reel in the catch, it's still Pass Interference. That you decline the penalty is irrelevant. Don't be results-oriented in assessing a play.

Grit your teeth all you want...he caught the ball and even Joyce agreed. The double clutch is irrelevant...it was not an establishment of control, it was a re-assertion of control. Regardless, Joyce's safe call had nothing to do with the double clutch (something he'd have never seen nor heard)...he made the call because he believed the runner beat the throw. The original point is this call is so hard to make because the umpire can't hear the ball hit the glove on those soft tosses, and that is why the Joyce and Denkinger calls are similar. To your point on Denkinger...you could SEE he was out in real time just fine, and if he had been watching the glove and the bag, like we do when we watch TV, he'd have likely made the right call. Time and time again we see umpires, correctly, to a ridiculous level of accuracy, determine whether or not the tag on the foot beat the hand touching the base seven+ feet away.

This is the Kevin Gausman maneuver, and it sometimes seems to be a bit of a crapshoot when he is and isn't balked.

This would really suck in the bottom of the 9th in the World Series. I would hope any pro ump has the authority to declare that play is stopped "immediately" after a lightning strike, meaning anything happening AFTER the lightning (like a balk) doesn't exist. This ump will have a successful career as a bureaucrat.

I've wondered about that myself. Another coach and I went through a bit of an exercise with our players, more for curiosity than anything. Brought on by a particularly awful umpire we experienced at a tournament who just couldn't get a call at first base right if it was under half a step. Going back to what I said earlier...if you just flip a coin here, you'll get the call right 50% of the time (sample sizes aside) - if your method and effort are falling short of randomness, you're doing something wrong. This ump was truly in the 10-20% range. The other coach's statement to me was (and I was skeptical) that you didn't even need to see the play to get that call right. We created plays at first and had coaches and players be the umpire - and they would close their eyes/look towards the outfield and make the call. All they could do was listen for BOTH the foot and the glove. And they're surprisingly accurate. In fact. they were more accurate than the traditional method (as non-experienced umpires). More surprising...most could accurately make the call at first, from the third base coach's box - just by differentiating between the two sounds. Don't get me wrong...it's not practical for many other reasons, including whether or not the foot actually hit the bag or the ground, was the ball caught...short hops in the dirt...etc, etc. But it tells me that our eyes may be tricking us here...or we sometimes get confused processing the two pieces of information...or something else. So we may be better off looking at glove and listening to the foot...or we may be better off listening for both...or better off watching both (pro umpires, and a lot of amateur umpires) are very good at seeing that a tag on the foot does or doesn't beat the hand on the bag six feet away from the tag. While also accepting the possibility that the method in use is the best of all. I just go back to the coin flip - if stats bear out that we're not outperforming a coin flip, we're doing something wrong.

If this isn't a deliberate attempt to break up a DP then nothing is.

The analysis is incomplete to really determine the meaning of a 60-65% overturn rate each year - you need to include the number of close plays that weren't challenged at all - those are at least plays where the manager didn't have enough certainty to risk a challenge, if not agreed with the call outright. Further that that, we would need to review those plays and determine if the calls "would have been" overturned if challenged. Or, at the very least...if you say 209 close plays at first were reviewed, how many total close plays occurred. That might help contextualize that number. Not in determine why it's 72% vs 65%, but to explain why it's close to 3/4 than 1/2. The other piece of the analysis that would be relevant is breaking the overturned calls down between out vs safe calls made on the field. That would help identify if there's a gap in how the on-field judgment is made. Without that information, this data shows a statistical problem - in short, the umps shouldn't be that "bad". On true banger plays you really should be hovering around 50/50...and for some reason over the past decade 57% overturn has been their BEST year?? The conclusion there would be that umps would be better off randomizing their calls - then they'd only be wrong 50% of the time, not 60, 65, 72%. If you're not even achieving a coin flip using some kind of trained methodology, then maybe the method is flawed. That is, if you do a series of true/false tests, and you keep scoring 30%, you're doing something wrong. The other valuable piece would be to compare overturn rates at other 50/50 calls...and then look at those 50/50 strike/balls. I suspect it's back to the age-old method of watching the foot and listening to the glove, and maybe that's not as reliable as we think? We absolutely know where it fails, and Joyce and Denkinger will tell you all about it...ie. on soft tosses you don't hear the ball hit the glove. Probably similar problem on any throw against crowd noise.

On first look I see no offer - HBP take your base. After a few looks, I see him pulling his bat back AFTER the pitch misses it. He doesn't "offer", per se, but it seems he's kind of going "uh oh...the pitch missed my bat, better pull back to make this look good".

I did some prompts in MS CoPilot and came up with this (using OBR, but it could be repurposed): ⚾ Fair Ball (Refined Definition) A fair ball is a batted ball that touches first, second, or third base or is entirely or partially on or over fair territory when it: Settles between home and first base, or between home and third base; Bounds past first or third base; First lands beyond first or third base; Touches a player or umpire; Passes out of the playing field in flight. ⚾ Foul Ball (Revised Definition) A foul ball is a batted ball that is neither a fair ball nor a foul tip.

Schrodinger's Ball.

Same possibilities...they may not notice him right away...but, yes, if they do, they're screaming. Also a bit different from OP because here, if it is a foul ball the expectation is a very loud declaration by an umpire to that effect. You think this is a foul ball without hearing that, I'm not holding a lot of sympathy. This is a no brainer "out". I agree the OP is an out, for being tagged while off the base, but I would like to hear a verbal "safe". Runner wasn't instructed to go anywhere, so it's on the runner, but I don't think enough was reasonably done to convey the appropriate information to the runner. A safe habit for the runner is just return to the base and let someone say "you were out".

Who gives a SH*# about everyone watching the play? How about the people IN the play? It's quite apparent that the runner didn't see what happened. He could very well be the only person on the field not watching the ball...he's running head down and watching the base. He may just hear the ball hit the glove and not see anything else...so from his perspective he just believes he's been beat. I disagree with your "no ball" assessment...the ball was there, and actually hit the fielder's glove. There's even a world where F3 thinks he has caught, and has, the ball. It happens on these "obvious" plays. It's so obvious (to everyone but the B/R who isn't watching the ball...he's just running his ass off) that nobody really notices, because they're just expecting him to go back to the base, or they've moved on to concentrating on the next batter...or maybe another runner. Very easy that they just wouldn't notice him doing this until too late.

It usually takes a few before the alpha males figure out the first one, two, three putouts weren't flukes. Besides, you steal on the pitcher, not the catcher...the better catchers can forgive some of the slower deliveries is all.

This is a demonstration of the skills a pro F2 possesses to pull this play off, but does not change the fact that he was indeed hindered. Likewise in football, that a receiver was still able to reel in a pass with the safety holding onto his arms, it's still pass interference. Even if you successfully argued that F2's throw path wasn't changed (which you haven't), the batter blinded F2 from his target.

Cybersecurity is my career. All for MFA, but I will offer some caveats. First - on a personal note about MFA in general. Use an authenticator app, passkey or some kind of biometric/passwordless option whenever you can over SMS. SMS is, by far, the most vulnerable form of MFA (it's surprisingly easy to hijack your phone number). If you are using a site that only offers SMS, and the data there presents a risk (eg. bank), hound them to provide other MFA options. Also - please, use a different password everywhere. Having said that little PSA... 1. If there's no PII or financial info here, or anything you'd consider private, is it life-changing if your U-E account were to be hacked? Your reputation here/elsewhere is a valid consideration too. MFA may not be necessary on a forum like this, from a data security/privacy perspective. It may seem a bit much to new users. Having said that, definitely enforce MFA for any admin accounts. 2. I'm not convinced MFA would prevent the incident you describe...it's common for these gangs to use burner, or even personal phones, to quickly get over that hurdle. MFA is a security measure to force people to verify their identity/access...it's not really meant as a deterrent to creating fake accounts. To give you an idea - Facebook removed 1+ Billion fake accounts at the end of 2024. And a recent data breach showed 1.6 Billion accounts on X/Twitter - even though they only have about 300 million active users. The rest are mostly fake. If the bad guys want to create fake ID's they're going to. 3. Is the idea now to make people register even to "Ask the Umpire"? (currently says no registration required, but you can't submit questions if you aren't logged in) Requiring people to register for that component may be all you need - although I'm not clear if the spammer accounts were guests or registered users. Assuming these spammers were simply guests, try making everyone require an ID to post, with a valid email address that must be verified. Try that first before adding MFA. If the spammers are getting past verifying a valid email, MFA likely won't deter them. I don't think you'd significantly reduce the number of questions asked by forcing all posters to register...it might even create more engagement from those people to have to register and then get access to all the other parts of the forum. 4. If you do opt for MFA, try to set it up to MFA only once for each IP/Device you log in from. And then need MFA to change your password.

I'll say the same thing about timeouts I say when people ask other questions about certain baseball rules related to where your feet are (rather than the ball). This is not football. Stop bringing a football frame of reference to baseball. Also - stop bringing the MLB you see on TV to your local amateur setting. Pro baseball has most of the same rules, but is managed in an entirely different way, to a different flow...not only for TV viewing, but simply for professionals working with professionals. It's in many ways more informal, and it can be, because everyone knows what's going on.

If there's only R3, there's nothing to hinder, by the description. However, if there was another runner on the paths there may be an issue.

That position is, without any other word coming to mind, stupid. Or, perhaps, simply intellectually dishonest. A runner is out when...he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. If this is truly your position to justify this interpretation/opinion, there's really nothing further to discuss. At the beginning you asked me which logic I used to make my original statement. You have ended this with the textbook example of logical fallacy. Unless using this dishonesty, those who have interpreted this way are, in no uncertain terms, declaring it is not intent. And they are mistaken. Please tell me you're kidding.