BLWizzRanger

I dont see the runner needing to avoid the contact as there was no defensive player in his path. The F1 came from and tagged him on his left side. And the F1 reared back, put his shoulder down and put extra effort in his tag such that he extended his arms. This was not a normal tag. I have MC since the F1 reared back and gave him extra. A normal tag would not have propelled the BR 4 or 5 feet to his right. He might have still fell on a normal tag but he wouldnt have had his left shoulder lifted up up over his head. How were they able to finish the game? Benches cleared and position players left their positions. What descretion did the umpires use?

I was taken aback in reading this and seeing the chairman's name was a Selig. What a coincidence! Not implying anything other than previous MLB commish was a Selig and the chairman's name is the same. Wonder what the Polymarket had odds on that.

A lot of help I was. I will fix or delete when I can figure out how to do so...

Just trying to help....

I question religious circles here, because growing up many moons ago as a cradle Catholic, if you didn't have a bingo night or a bazaar with a dice table or roulette wheel, could you even say you were Catholic? Funny though, as I moved 20 miles south into another state, I don't see these games at my local churches. Maybe it was the culture of the area that drove these games. I guess what I am trying to say is churches have been involved in charitable gambling for some time now, not just recently.

Coach: Why did you call him out for stepping to the other box? Ump: Well, he disconcerted the pitcher. Why should we care what the player's feelings are when making a ruling? Even though NFHS gets to the point, IMHO, the NCAA rule is better written: "The individual steps from one batter's box to the other wile the pitcher is in position ready to pitch." I take this as the pitcher is in the set position and not the stretch. Also, in the windup position, with both hands together and in front of the pitcher.

Totally goes against the notion of getting outs.

Because it's bush league and the coach's have integrity? I'm not saying this, of course, but some might think this way.... lol

Can't tell you how much I needed that @Velho, even if the season has just started for me. Thanks a bunch!

I don't know? Doesn't the rule book say something about multiple appeals making it a 'travesty'?

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1abwAsWuqu/ For missapplication of rules in reviewing a check swing secondarily to a hit batter. Check swings are not reviewable.

The risk of the overthrow and the BR advancing is very small since the F2 should be aligned to the backup lane with very few steps needed. I think that is the give and take on U1's positioning in foul. There is only a very slight chance of being behind the runner.

I have worn these and Adrenalines. These are my turf shoes and I have never slipped with them either on dry or wet fields.

@wolfe_man, OK, my last one. Is a coincidence that you came back when you did? The timing suggest otherwise. My apologies on past attempts at humor at your expense. I will stop. My favorite saying is 'if you can't laugh at yourself, let me know. I will laugh at you. I think being able to laugh at oneself is a healthy mindset but it can reach a limit. You have been a good, noble, target that, you have got to admit, originated with you laughing at yourself. Anyways, good to see you coming back to the field and contributing here.

Wait a minute.... Playing devil's advocate here, maybe, real life happenings.... While on a turf field, only, someone that will be nameless has been known to remove their helmet and mask and lay them down ever so gently, helmet on the ground and mask on top of helmet, squared up to each other, behind home plate (closer to the edge of the circle than the plate). And this is frowned upon? I've got mixed feelings on this one. Yeah, yeah, if the mask can be held and the helmet worn on a grass/ dirt field, why can't they do that on a turf field, you might ask. Sure, it can be and was done years ago. Just didnt know this could be a faux pas or unwritten rule by the Brotherhood. Why is it one?

Yeah, not AI. I can distinguish between the two. 😝

So... are we saying umpires only care about what other umpires think about what they are wearing.... sort of like .... women?

Trying not to stereotype here, but think back to your worse experience on the field that you didnt cause. What was the color of the ballbags your partner was wearing? Jk, but no, how presentable was your partner? Thinking back to last year, the one partner that I was with on multiple games, didnt have one game with me that he didnt cause an issue. And his presentation was extremely lacking. In our hobby, I think there is a direct correlation between the two.

ORrrrrrrrr, "Congratulations on getting this on-air talent. One job requirement is for you to read this rule book and take the umpires test every year." There are three positions or experiences to each game: player, manager, and umpire. They always leave the umpire experiences out when trying to fill a job.

I don't disagree with you or your supposition that your crews were treated with more respect because they looked more professional. But, I am just wondering how your association paid or 'invested' for the coordinated uniforms for your entire roster? And what did this include, two shirts and pants? shoes? hats? gear? So did the association mandate that each umpire had to purchase these items or they didn't get assignments? And will this be a yearly purchase? Or did you have a shirtless car wash and bake sale to raise the association's money?

@The Man in Blue FOUND IT!!!! Its in NHFS. 8.2-2a .....It is interference when the batter-runner, on a force play (sic), touches only the white portion of the base and collides with the fielder in the process of catching a thrown ball while on the white portion of the base. Obstruction is called on the defense when there is a force play (sic) on the batter runner, who touches only the colored portion of the base and collides with the fielder about to catch a thrown ball while touching the colored portion of the base. Wanna bet I will sleep better tonight?

Yeah, I was speaking to two different instances of possible interference. One being the (my hallucinations??) contact on the bag due to him touching the bag's white side and the other being the possible running lane interference since he was running in fair territory. It is a distinct ruling from NCAA presentations and videos that an appeal is not needed if the BR is on the bag while the fielder is touching the bag with the ball and an appeal is needed if the runner beat the throw and is two steps past the bag. The appeal must be done before the BR returns to the bag. And I agree that the F3's actions were not an appeal in any way shape or form. More and more I am thinking the 1U was just a little rusty in not getting the original call correct - BR out for touching the white bag on a play in the infield and no appeal was needed. R1 to third. The OP shows the video of all of that.

I need to go back through all of the NCAA videos to see if I can find it, maybe I am hallucinating. My understanding was that if on a play in the infield, if the BR touches only the white portion of the base and makes contact with the fielder, if is interference. If contact was made between the fielder and the BR when the BR touches the colored base, it is obstruction. Otherwise, the standard rules apply to the use of a double bag. BTW, I don't think they called running lane interference because the throw made the F3 elevate to try and catch it. BR did not affect the catch in that sense. Also, the fielder came down with the ball and touched the bag when the BR was on the bag... meaning, no appeal was necessary. If the BR was two steps past the bag, then the appeal was needed. So maybe the umpire conference overturned it over that fact - no interference - and the R1 got third because he acquired it legally.