Velho

I take it you haven't see @Richvee's thread. 😁 Seriously, great points. Biggest thing for me was grokking CICO (calories in, calories out) and sleep. Working out more at the cost of sleep or that there is a "free lunch" in no carb diet are traps. I'm down 30+ lbs and another 15 would be good. About time to refocus on that.

Reading comprehension. It's FUN-damental. (apologies, it's been a long week at work...) Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's why MLB has 8 second vs 0 seconds. SECTION 2 INFRACTIONS BY PITCHER: failing to pitch or make or attempt a play, including a legal feint, within 20 seconds after the pitcher has received the ball. PENALTY: The batter shall be awarded one ball. SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS -A BATTER SHALL NOT: ART. 1 ... Delay the game by failing to take a position promptly in the batter's box within 20 seconds. The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat

Curious, how so? EXCEPTION: The starting pitchers may warm up by using not more than eight throws, completed in one minute (timed from the first throw). When a pitcher is replaced during an inning or prior to an inning, the relief pitcher may not use more than eight throws completed in one minute (timed from the first throw). At the beginning of each subsequent inning, the pitcher may warm up by using not more than five throws, completed in one minute (timed from the third out of the previous half-inning) (3-1-2). In either case, the umpire-in-chief may authorize more throws because of an injury, ejection or inclement weather.

Probably. Sounds like it. (not a dig at you, we all are probably too easy to some degree) Just don't get carried away (and look out for Reggie Jackson)

No surprise given how many Seattleites and Californians that are moving your way (said by someone was/is from those places)

Don't know about you but I'm carrying extra weight as is. Looking to shed, not add 😂

💯 I've been focusing on this more lately. Of course, calling mostly 12U makes this easier for me.

"What is only applicable to a game that is not broadcast?"

Unless you read the rulebook back to front because you'll have found this which makes it foul "while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground." 😉

They got ya. You're talking to a toaster.

Also, the rule still says it's fair "while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player". That doesn't disappear for newly added contradicting language (not to mention that new language was added to a paragraph about fly balls).

Except this week is the first time it's ever been called that way. EDIT: First time it's ever been floated it should be called this way since it wasn't called this way on the play in question. And has been called Fair for the rememberable past.

I haven't yet gotten my new GD plate pants hemmed. They are heavier than my Smitty's. Will be curious to see if that helps.

If they were creased well enough that wouldn't happen.

The rulebook says every which way. Do we apply in order of presentation? Day game or night game? Reading of the chicken bones? Me neither, and almost no one else (again, as evidenced by Lindsay). I follow the conundrum but, regardless of the language, feel like we've all agreed on it one way for however long and the change is both weird (why change it?) and ambiguously communicated. If this a real change, it makes NFHS handing the RLI change looks pristine.

It's funny, I've had this settles vs touched over fair territory conflict top of mind to bring here for a discussion but I felt it too pedantic to debate "what if it settles before it is touched?" (and especially if never touched as @beerguy55 advised). The "settles on fair/foul territory" vs "on or over fair/foul territory touches the person" language has been there for a period of time and the implementation has been "over fair territory" for prior to 1B or 3B infield - as voiced by Lindsay. The added language this year (below underlined) seemed to me meant for fly ball initial bounce and then go to foul territory untouched (which would primarily be beyond 1B & 3B - and to clarify that distinction). Along with the NCAA Protest, I'm holding my breath for clarification. I rarely bother the pro umpires I know but am considering it on this one. Definitions for completeness. Emphases mine. 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, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight. A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball. When in contact with the ground, a ball must be in contact with fair territory and not merely over fair territory in order to be adjudged to be fair. 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, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground. A foul fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the infielder is on foul or fair territory at the time he touches the ball.

You may have seen something I haven't (I haven't seen a quote from the latest MLBUM) but the 2019 MLBUM doesn't address "settling". In full it says: 80. FAIR BALL Definitions of Terms: When in contact with the ground, a ball must be in contact with fair territory and not merely over fair territory in order to be adjudged to be fair.

I'm struggling to find anything. The definition doesn't address it: "A BATTER is an offensive player who takes a position in the batter’s box." By the definition a Batter is in the box. Further, depending on the form of the requirement I may be missing, this is for regular season Juniors? I'd allow it (but it would give me pause if first time I'd ever encountered it was in a game). [Thank you for a great laugh!]

I follow but that's not need since the definition explicitly states a batted ball touching a base is fair (including 2B - that's some forward thinking!)

Multiple reports dating back to yesterday that MLB has said this was improperly called fair. Text of tweets posted so folks don't have to click through: From an Athletic writer that covers the Padres https://x.com/dennistlin/status/2049238663981154614 "When contacted about last night's controversial fair/foul call, an MLB spokesperson pointed to the definition of a fair ball in the league's umpire manual: "When in contact with the ground, a ball must be in contact with fair territory ... to be fair." From a Fox Sports MLB Analyst https://x.com/BenVerlander/status/2049218851267908050 OFFICIAL RULING FROM MLB I reached out to MLB since there is a lot of confusion regarding this play: “In our Umpire Manual, here is the definition of a fair ball: FAIR BALL Definitions of Terms: When in contact with the ground, a ball must be in contact with fair territory and not merely over fair territory in order to be adjudged to be fair.” MLB acknowledged an error was made. From a professional Scorekeeper (MiLB I think, he's anonymous) https://x.com/ScoringChanges/status/2049584992486109499 OK, follow along, because I have answers. Bottom line. This is NOW a foul ball. I talked with the same person @BenVerlander did and the same person @dennistlin talked with, and here is how I can best explain this, and I’ll put this so it makes sense to the scoring followers. What is in the rulebook is unclear, because it can absolutely be interpreted the way that I, and many, many folks have interpreted it, that the ball touching the ground is a foul ball is in the section about a fair fly ball, so it applies to balls that are hit on a fly past the bases. I wasn’t wrong about that. However, many times folks here have heard me say that the Official Scorer’s Manual goes into greater detail on something (error, or earned/unearned run, etc.). As was explained to me, the Umpire’s Manual goes into greater detail on this exact play, new detail for this year, that stresses that this is a foul ball. Now, if it’s moving and touched, that can be interpreted different from what I understand, but as of this year, the ball in the @padres game should have been ruled foul (life would have been easier if France doesn’t touch it). I was given kudos for knowing the Mets/Pirates play from 2021 and the Yankees/Royals play from 2023, and those plays were both ruled fair at the time, but if those plays happened in 2026, they would be foul. Likewise, Monday’s play in 2021 or 2023 is fair. It is known that this needs cleared up better in the OBR for 2027 to avoid this. It also was explained that the rule needed tweaked and put into the Umpire’s Manual in greater detail due to replay advances, basically because of the issues that parallax can cause. So yes, it should have been ruled foul from what I have been told, but everything I said made sense because before this was put into the 2026 Umpire’s Manual, it was fair. Everyone that was wrong was wrong because of past precedent and actual info that wasn’t clear. The rule is written where it can be interpreted either way, and I’m satisfied with that. I feel WAY better hearing it for myself out of my meeting with those folks. The best part of this is NOW WE KNOW. Now let’s get some changes and educate!

You're right, I've since learned I was misinformed (not rrr,rrr,rrrrrrong but 'misinformed' I think most meals but not all were covered for the guy I talked to though (may have just been that one location though)

I didn't say anything. I pasted the rulebooks. 😉 I follow the distinction you're making given earlier in 5.08(a)(8) "If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play." I do have to wonder though, given that a distinction is made regarding a ball hit the bat in the very same section, why did rule maker not make a distinction about the bat interfering with a fielder if the intent is to differentiate? FWIW, In J/R it simply says "his whole bat hinders a fielder trying to make a play". MiLB Manual reiterates the existing language with no adds, and the MLB Manual is silent. [For those that have it, does Wendlestedt say anything ( @jimurrayalterego maybe?)] Bolstering your argument further, in 5.09(a)(8) it says "If, in the umpire’s judgment, there is intent on the part of a base runner to interfere with a batted or thrown ball by dropping the helmet or throwing it at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead and runners would return to last base legally touched." The NCAA comment, to me, seems they are covering the discarded bat, though they use the word 'thrown', since they say BR has "some responsibility": "Note 1: The batter, after hitting a ball or becoming a batter-runner, has some responsibility about where they throw their bat so that it does not interfere with a defensive player making a play on the ball." Last thought, since it's not said to be legal, such as the ball hitting a dropped bat, going back to the definition of Interference may be a foundation to start from: INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. Holding my breath for the Protest ruling (and that it has any detail to work from).

I'm an ASICS wearer as well - largely because Nikes don't fit my feet. This caught my eye because it's the closest I can get to Jordans or Air Force One. (They also have one with orange logo - but none in Wide I've tried golf shoes before but none of them fit really well (plus only in Feb/Mar clinics do I really work with wet grass so have been powering through without any water resistant shoes).