Velho

Did we touch on the end of 6.01(a)(10)? That seems to at least put to bed not scoring the run on intentional interference (which escalated this from the whole stick being poopy to the whole stick being made of poop, imo). 6.01 (a)(10) If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base;

But the barrel head did go past 45 degrees (the MLB tested replay standard) and his hip and body (for the NCAA & NFHS inclined) 🤣

[insert funny quip about umpiring and this study here. I'd do it but my brain is too tired.] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2026/03/09/difficult-people-aging-study/89069753007/ People who make your life more difficult may be aging you faster, according to recent research. In the study, published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that people with more hasslers in their life, or those "who create problems or make life more difficult," have a higher biological age compared to their actual chronological age. "These results suggest that the hasslers in one’s social environment may constitute an overlooked but consequential biological risk factor," the authors write. The study even accounted for several other factors, including occupation, adverse childhood experiences and smoking. But still, the impact of negative social ties remained significant, the study notes. Just how significant? "Each additional hassler is associated with approximately 1.5% faster biological aging and roughly nine (months) of additional biological age among individuals of the same chronological age," the authors found. But not all hasslers were the same. Family and friend hasslers showed "detrimental associations," whereas spouse hasslers did not. And biological aging wasn't the only impact. Hasslers were also associated with multiple adverse mental and physical health outcomes like depression, anxiety and higher body mass index. "These findings together highlight the critical role of negative social ties in biological aging as chronic stressors and the need for interventions that reduce harmful social exposures to promote healthier aging trajectories," the authors added.

And no penalty if F1 drops the ball during this? Interestingly (to me at least), LL has "8.05(j) With runners on base, it is an illegal pitch [or balk at non-small field levels] when the pitcher, while touching the plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball;"

I follow your argument (and 99.9% agree) but your hypothetical is only kind of true in NFHS (since the ball was dead with the balk nothing else after ever matters) and not true in NCAA and OBR (R1 stays at 3B in that situation).

So @TheLovejoy I'll extend this to you: your position (said without malice) is the run scores. Does that change with intentional INT to prevent a catch for 3rd out - which means the run would NOT score?

Agreed. 1) No advantage gained. 2) Spirit and intent of the rule. So @BigBlue4u & @maven, your position (said without malice) is the run scores. Does that change with intentional INT to prevent a catch for 3rd out - which means the run would NOT score?

And/or "Coach, why should you benefit from committing Interference?"

While I agree . . . there is a contingent of umpires who argue that if it is written that way, that must be the way TPTB want it to be. Exactly the reason for jury nulli... um, so, um. Yeah. Moving on. Fun read: https://www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/

Problem with that (and not arguing the rule but the incentives it creates) is on the @jimurrayalterego described high popup R3 crosses the plate, BR reaches 1B, R2 INT voila run scores. If the ball had been caught, no run would score. Why wouldn't the offset INT? And if the argument is that's different since intentional (putting aside plausible deniability intentionality we see occur), what's the cite for no run scores?

What if the INT was intentional? It wasn't being done to prevent a double play (since there were two outs), so does the run still score? Interesting situation. @johnnyg08 = 😈

Agreed. It looks minimal (especially in comparison to the Cobalt). Feels like a return monster that would be good to avoid up front. https://www.amazon.com/EvoShield-Pro-SRZTM-Vented-Skull-Cap/dp/B0BGQWRFD2/

I've been part of it once. I went out, PU ran the loop, and RF gunned BR at 3B. It was awesome.

At least it's the right uniform number #TheKid

Agree that you go hyperbolic ("but nobody really talks about how much our appearance on the field shapes the way coaches, players, and fans treat us" - really? Every umpire training I've ever been to has touched this) to hawk your services?

If he had stepped early, how would that be considered under the clarification language in 8-7-c? That is nearly verbatim with OBR where, in application, F2 is given great leeway when the throw comes from an infielder.

Agreed. They don't care about margin of error or understanding results vs risk in their own lives so they certainly don't care about those things in their entertainment.

A already happened less extreme example Untitled.mov

Thank for posting that, as well as the feint one. Do you think the feint one was secretly a double pass rule call?

Nice job @Thunderheads. So now you got that going for you, which is nice.

Not tax advice (plus I was never that kind of CPA and my license is expired anyway). That said, @jimurrayalterego 's thoughts are correct. Report the income (and eligible expenses) on your taxes whether you get a 1099 or other tax form or not (this technically applies to ALL income, even fantasy football and Super Bowl pools. IRS / States want their cut). re: hobby vs business, and how to report, this seems a good place to start https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/self-employment-taxes/4-tax-tips-for-money-making-hobbies/L89qz1GNj I'm sure others can weigh in on how they do their taxes.

The help wanted sign made me think of us: "“Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” Well, except for the last part... https://www.thisisuncharted.co/p/startup-hiring-brutal-honesty-shackleton-constraint-signaling "You might have guessed, I went down a Youtube rabbit hole about polar expeditions. More specifically, how one of the most dangerous and underfunded expeditions in history built the most loyal and legendary crew ever assembled. It all started with the most legendary founder-led recruitment message of all time. Legend says Sir Ernest Shackleton posted this ad in a London paper before his 1914 Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition: “Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” He didn’t sugarcoat anything. He didn’t try to “sell the vision.”He sold the pain. And 5k men applied. He didn’t hide the constraint. He featured it. And that did three things: Filtered for resilience: No one stumbled into that expedition by accident. You had to want the hardship. Increased commitment: The harder the entry, the stronger the identity. Bonded the team: Everyone joined eyes wide open, ready to suffer together. This was psychology. And Shackleton intuitively understood what modern hiring still forgets. People who volunteer for a hard path are wired for it. When you choose hardship with eyes open you stick. The tougher the entry the stronger the post rationalisation and loyalty. In other words the constraint is the feature."

Well, yes. That's the start to look for a sticker but you still have In game damage to assess. Flat bat, rattles, cracks, top of bat still attached, etc... Which I take is to say that you're observant but not actively looking. Makes sense. And same as every other level (even the notorious pregame inspection by LL umpires ended last year).

Still beats having the umpires go into the dugouts pre game and visually inspect them. A lot of grief with that. In practice, is it administered on appeal in game to then check for the stickers?

I don't know which I have (I didn't know it had changed). I bought mine Sep'25 from GD. Looks like SKU is "ALL-SC900UMP-S" (so Sand?). I've had none of the issue @SeeingEyeDog mentions. I find it grippy to the touch (and marks up so doesn't look great - though Im imagine I/us are the only ones that would notice). After small adjustment period (very small, maybe came off funny 1-2 times) it works fine with the Umplife harness.