Is it really obstruction?
 

SITUATION 1: In the top of the seventh inning, the home team leads 3-2. With a runner on third base, the visiting coach puts on a squeeze play. R1 breaks for home on the pitcher's motion. The first baseman, aware of the situation, races toward home plate, and catches the pitch in front of the plate and tags the sliding runner before he can reach the plate. RULING: This is obstruction on the batter by the first baseman. The ball will be declared dead, R1 will be awarded home and the batter will be awarded first base. (8-1-1e-1)

Just as if the catcher had jumped out and caught the ball before the hitter could swing at it. Gotta let Charlie have his hack......

It's that time of year!!!!!!!!!!! Hot Stove League and TWP!!!!!!!!!!

FED calls "catcher's interference" obstruction so yes, in FED it's obstruction.

The interference need not be by the catcher, it can be by any fielder - just as the rules say.

Now I'm off to upate my ignore list.

NFL refs debut new slacks
 

I use to think the NFL ref was the funniest looking official in major sports. Not anymore.
Heather gray slacks may now be the ugliest piece of clothing in pro sports.
If only the policy makers would realize a fashinista's desire for a new look.
I can't wait to toss out my heather gray slack for some other option.

They debuted them last season, and they only wear them in cold weather.

Which is it?
 

Bases loaded no outs. Batter hits line drive at R1 leading off 1B. R1 had absolutely no time to react and is hit by the line shot. Very doubtful F3 near the bag or F4 deep in the hole would have a chance to field the ball which now glances into the bullpen area with F9 giving chase. Do I have immediate interference or let the play continue allowing 3 runs to score? Both coaches want a ruling in their favor. Help!

Thursday night, 65 degrees and dry in Texas Stadium. Might be cold if you are from San Diego.....

Seriously, maybe one of you football guys can shed some light as to why they wore the black pants.

Personally, I like them.

I don't mind the black, but with that hugely wide stripe down the pant-leg, they look like convict "wear" to me.

Sounds like an immediate DB to me.

Too many umpires get too hung up on trying to decide if they should allow a runner who has been hit by a batted ball to remain alive by thinking too much about whether a fielder had a chance to field the ball. I can assure you that out of every 100 runners you see hit by the batted ball, maybe one will not be out for INT. The reason is that there is only ONE very rare stituation that relieves a runner from hit responsibility to avoid get hit by a batted ball.

ALL runners are ALWAYS required to avoid ALL batted balls at ALL times no matter whether the infielders are playing in front of them or behind them.

The only situation that relieves a runner from hit responsibility to avoid get hit by a batted ball is if the runner gets hit when he is passing DIRECTLY behind the infielder who allows the ball to pass him untouched and no other infielder is in position to make a play on the ball. The rulebook says "immediately behind" but "directly behind" is a better descripton. The ball must pass either between the infielders legs, or immediately to his left or right within an arms reach.

If the ball passes untouched by an infielder and the runner is too far behind the infielder (IMO, about 8 feet or more) then the runner is out. Of course, if the ball passes untouched by an infielder and hits the runner but another infielder is in position to make a play, the runner is out.

When you see a runner hit by the batted ball and he is out, call "That's interference! He's out" right away.

Well, I guess I've been around enough cold weather to know what cold is.

I lived in Texas for 10 years and it does get cold there.

I lived in Illinois for a year during the blizzard of 1981/82, when it got down to -65 degrees wind chill. I moved away in the spring vowing to never return. I have kept my promise.

In San Diego County you can surf in the ocean, ride dune buggies in the desert, and play in the snow in the mountains all on the same day.

Plus I must have missed the part of the game where they gave the weather report. I only got to see the first half hour before I had to leave for school. It looked like it was cold there. Maybe they wore the long pants as a fashion statement.

Or it might be warm if you're from Buffalo, NY.

I agree with everything Richard has written. But connect these two bits of info: the mechanic I use is: "Time! That's interference! (pointing at the offending runner w/ left hand) He's out!"

Don't the shirts look that way to start with? The pants only have the one stripe but the shirts have always looked like Alcatraz fashions.

For next year's games (in Trenton only), our association has prescribed navy shorts with no belt or tie string. The waist measurement of the shorts shall be at least 4 inches greater than the umpire's actual waist measurement. The shirt will be a black "hoodie." For the first time, the association has added underpants to its dress code: gray boxer shorts.

This change does require some new mechanics. For example, the PU will use the left hand both for holding the indicator and for grasping the waistband. The BU will keep the left hand on the waistband with the exception of during "safe" calls. (This is the reason for the gray boxer shorts. The association wants uniformity of appearance on safe calls.)

It is believed that the new uniforms will garner more respect from players and fans. A check with various suppliers shows that they do have the shorts, but the hoodie is a tough one. We found one supplier that has them, but only in red or medium blue, the wearing of which colors can be fatal at certain local fields.