The Man in Blue

Are you high? It must be good stuff. Still a (presumable) force. You must be high. Are you an @$$#0!3? You are an @$$#0!e! Finally, one I can answer seriously! Not from what I saw. After the play, it appeared F5 helped the runner up, showing it was all in good humor. Good stuff, Max! I did have a stalemate at the end of a 14u softball game with the tying run between third and home and the catcher with the ball. Time had expired and the batter cranked one (no idea why the outfield was playing in). The batter was coming into third while the ball was headed to the plate. The 3BC told the runner "You can't stop, you have to score!" so she rounded and kept going until she saw the catcher with the ball. The DHC was yelling "Do NOT throw it and do not go after her!" as he was afraid the runner would get by some how. The OHC was yelling "Do NOT go back to third!" We played cat and mouse because the catcher kept drifting up the line, the coach would yell, and then she would come back. This lasted about 4 minutes with my BU on third for any play coming back, and me in position for any play coming forward. When both players just stopped and stared at each other, the OHC yelled at us, "What now?!" I finally said loudly, "If there isn't any play being made, we are going to call TIME." The runner was hoping that distracted the catcher enough that she could slip by. She didn't. To your point, it is entirely different, but being able to read the context is not. Sure, those guys all know one another and play against one another for days on end, multiple times a year, over multiple years of their lives, FOR PAY. However, we have all had those games with kids that have played against (or with!) one another for a few years and know one another. We just have to be "attuned to the temperature" and know when something is in good humor and when something is designed to garner a response. One thing I loved about my daughters playing travel softball and volleyball was that they got to know so many other players, people, and officials than they would have only playing for our school.

Is it exciting enough to bring me back next year?

Maybe not as "high end" as they are looking for, but I love the Mizuno with my AS Mag.

[English teacher] Still literature. [/English teacher]

Grand Slam . . . Mississippi . . . not surprised at all. Eject, wait, walk off. Getting them out of there is not our problem. If they don't want to leave, we leave. We cannot see from the video who actually started the physical altercation, but the umpire did not handle his business properly in what we do see. I feel bad for the partner who also took a suspension, but I would bet dollars to donuts that he is fine with not working for that organization. As for their "new policy" . . . lip service. Paying customers may be asked not to come back for a couple of days; umpires get the heave-ho for a year. Way to back the problem, Mike.

I would echo and emphasize a point @maven made: MASTERY is not just knowing the rules, it is knowing how to use and apply them. That is why this is art and not science. (That is also why I get so frustrated with case plays and interps . . . different soap box. 😋)

If I had to do it myself, I LOVE this G-hook! I am not a fan of "moving pieces" in safety equipment. As a catcher, I always hated the hook and D-rings. (FWIW, F3 responded fairly quickly and said there was an error or a glitch when my return was processed. They shipped them out the next day. I have the new box sitting here unopened since I had hung up my gear for the season by that time.) I really need to get with you, @MadMax, on modifying my Schutt. I've reverted back to it and I think that is where I will likely stay. I like my Cobalt but I don't love it (not sure why -- the fit is great, it handles the heat fairly well ... I guess it just still feels a bit thick). I pawned off my F3 after just a few uses. The original DaviShield donated its body to science . . . I need to dial this Schutt in.

No, the key word there was ANGLE, not banger . . . I am saying move to get the angle. I don't care if it is a banger or not, if you don't have the angle, you don't have the angle. Since you toss two steps fair in there, yes! I am a big advocate of 2SF as you say . . . that 45-degree stuff is ludicrous. Whether you use 2SF or 45-degrees, though, you need to be willing to move to get the angle once you have your initial read. Do not park it and leave it. If the play evolves (or devolves!), your position must evolve, too. I do agree with you that a play at first from B is less than optimal, but as many will agree on here, it is always a game of compromise. The advocates of eliminating A are taking the gain from B over the loss at A. (Not saying I am one, just saying it is not crazy.)

I love about 95% of what you said @HumblePie! Here is the one issue I have, and where your Friday game went all wrong: because I just called an 11u scrimmage two Fridays ago that called for an umpire on the day-of, because they were only able to schedule the scrimmage that same day, and they just got "stuck" without time to plan. That’s where the problem begins. A game that just comes together that day is a sandlot game and does not need an umpire. “Stuck without time to plan” is the problem. A proper officiating staff MUST be part of the plan. If they don’t care enough to make us a part of the plan, that tells you how important we really are to them. If you won’t work for a school trying to screw you out of $15 (or whatever the amount actually was), then why would you work for a group that doesn’t care enough to make sure the umpires are part of their plan. You are willing to stand up in front of your association (and I applaud that!), but you acquiesce and bail these people out.

While I don't agree with all of his logic, he is not trolling. I'm pretty certain this was something Carl Childress used to throw out there. I believe his logic was more for the old umpires who could not move as fast, so it gives them a "head start." I may be wrong on that. As for "angle on a banger" . . . why the heck are you standing still and not getting the angle? Oh yeah, because the Ol' Smitty generation teaches you to "get still and keep your head still." A locked in bad position is still a locked in bad position. Move, see the play, get the angle, show that you are working.

Just trying to make sure we are on the same page . . . we are talking about this one: There is no need to paint any dials, as you never need to look at it. I enjoy handing it to a coach (or a player) and having them "program" in a count . . . and then watching them be amazed when I give them the count without looking. (Buys you a bunch of credibility points, too!) I admit, it took me a little bit, but now that I have the system down, I NEVER look at it. Normal grooves are 0. One point is 1. 2 balls is a little weird, but I "feel" it as "1 pointing down" so I learned it. "Rough" is "danger" (2 strikes and/or 3 balls). The weight took a little getting used to, but like @Richvee, if I don't feel that heft, I am missing a major piece of my gear. Light indi-click-a-cators no longer feel right.

Exactly this. Had a tournament game last year where we ejected all three of the team's coaches. The TD finally got them escorted out, and we realized they had no adult coaches. Parents were ready to step in, but we told them we needed clarification from the tournament folks as to whether we could do that or not. (We preferred to do it so the kids could play.) We sent a "clubby" for the field to bring the TD back. We do not know what rostering or insurance requirements the tournament or organization has.

Never underestimate the power of random stupidity . . .

That is what I was getting at. Was the potential throw home “subverted” or diverted because of the opportunity to throw out the obstructed runner? No, there is no way I am awarding the runner home, so don’t think I am going there. I am throwing out there this: in other codes (NOT OBR), they view it as the first obstruction potentially changed the play (in ways we cannot know), so the award is given on that one. My bass-ackwards comment is based on the counter-intuitive feeling of not being awarded second when going that way, but then being awarded second when headed back to first. I get it under the rules; it just feels weird.

That just feels bass-ackwards (but I know it is right). Now, here is an argument (just for fun): with a runner on the move and reaching third base, we don't know if that play might have gone home, in which case the obstructed runner would have been headed for second. Since the initial obstruction held him up, it altered the play . . . Would you buy that? Or would you want to see the runner headed home before you would see it that way?

Darn the post office … 🙄

Smoothies need other ingredients!

Not apples and oranges, but a bunch of fruit salad that umpires seem hellbent on blending into a tasteless, bland puree to dump on the floor. Why are so many umpires intent on letting their games turn into this? There is logic and rationale and precedence that this type of action and behavior are not what the game intends. If you really are too afraid to use that, then fall back on the god rule that allows us to rule on things not covered in the rules. No, there technically is not rule that says Manny (yes, the rule should have his name specifically so you can figure out how to apply it) is allowed to run out of his way (maybe it should prescribe and exact number of steps to make you happy) to run out of the path to the base for SH*#s and giggles. A runner is allowed to choose their path (except when y’all want to say the fielder gets to dictate that path 🙄), they are not allowed to make an intentional action that interferes. Choosing the path he did is an intentional choice that interferes. Why do some umpires work so hard to try to break this beautiful game?

. . . and THAT illustrates one of the major failures of casebooks, rules, interps, etc. They should be used to teach how rules are applied, not to supplant the rulebook. They should illustrate how to think and use the rules, not to add more letters for letter of the law. If MLB is saying the actions of placing yourself in a distracting or blocking position are illegal, then why should the runner be allowed to do this. Hint: he is not. What do you have on this? Ground ball to F4. R1 has a big lead and runs into the path of the ball and stops, blocking F4's view. At the last moment, R1 moves or otherwise avoids the ball which now rolls past F4 or ricochets off F4 because he could not see it coming.

Why are there these stupid provisions on replay? No, coach I am not sure. But you have a challenge left, so you need to initiate it. Had you been a dumb@$$ and used all of them up earlier, then I could bail you out. No, I still don't know. Is the purpose to get the call right or not?

Get this call all day long, twice on tournament days, and one more time on days that end in Y. If you do not, you WILL get the catcher popping the kid in the melon because YOU just (incorrectly) taught him he "has to make the throw." (No, he doesn't.) If you are judging he held the throw because he didn't want to throw it on his own (not because of the batter), I suppose you can use that. Don't base it on whether or not you thought there was a viable play, though. We do not want to do anything that implies he must make the throw (that does apply for RLI) and will result in popping melons.

Since I don't believe we have an NSFW tag, I'll just drop this image.

I rest my case. He moved there intentionally. He knew that offered an increased probability of interfering. (That's intent.) Can you provide me with any other logical and rational reason for him to do it?