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.

Nope. The stripes on the shirts run the wrong way (vertically). The "real" chain gaing" shirts had stripes running horizontally.

Like these guys?

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/N...ain%20gang.bmp

Hey! I worked with the third guy from the left last season. As I recall he had trouble getting his hand up for the strike and out calls...

JJ

Paul Muni in I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932).

Since you know about this, why is everybody wearing a hat? And don't tell me the sun. I don't recall everyone in Cool Hand Luke wearing a hat.

Why is everybody wearing a hat?

In those days, most men wore hats simply as part of being dressed, even in prison. If you look at some of the old prison movies, even one starring Laurel and Hardy, the prisoners wore caps issued as part of their uniform. Only a boor would leave his hat on indoors, and so hat racks were something stores actually sold. You also tipped your hat when addressing a woman.

Look at a picture of a ball game crowd from before WW II (and even a few years afterward). You'll see virtually every man in a hat—straw in the summer (until Labor Day).

In the early 1950s, my dad (and every other man in New York City) wore his fedora whenever he went out. Men's hats were still a big business. But by the end of the 1950s, hats—after centuries of being practically required—had pretty much disappeared.

Of course, in the early 1950s, every male spectator at a ball game would also have been wearing a suit, and on the NY subways you'd have seen women wearing hats, veils, and gloves.

Times have changed.

PS. Mickey Mantle recalled that when he joined the Yankees in 1951, for street clothes he wore what the well-dressed Oklahoma boy would wear on a Saturday night: clean jeans, shined penny loafers, and a sport shirt (and I suspect clean white socks). Hank Bauer told Mantle that New York was different, and offered to buy him the necessary suit. After they got him fitted, Mantle said that he couldn't believe that it was possible to spend so much money on a suit of clothes—$35. (I'm sure that included a hat.)

Incidentally, sportscasters used to talk about a "shirtsleeve crowd." That term might not make much sense today, but it meant that the weather was nice enough that the men could take their suit jackets off. Since most men wore white shirts, the players often had a hard time picking up the ball. The most famous example was Joe Pepitone, who "lost a throw in the background of white shirts" (according to a written account) and gave the Dodgers the deciding run of the final game of the 1963 World Series.

Hey all,

Actually, during the building of Folsom Prison in Northern CA. in 1852, inmate were broken down into two groups: supervisory and laborer. These inmates lived on a "prison ship" on the American River during the construction.

IIRC, the supervisor inmates wore uniforms with vertical stripes and the worker inmates wore uniforms with horizontal stripes.

LomUmp:cool:

Jack Kennedy was the first U.S. president not to wear a hat routinely when out of doors. It was part of his image campaign vs. Nixon. The trend had probably already begun, but when the president stopped wearing a hat most men followed suit.

Hmmmm! With all the complaints about prision conditions, I think that Chain Gangs and these uniforms along with an 8 x 8 cell, a head, a sink and a cott should become standard in all the prisions! No TV, no internet, no library. Just work from sunup until sundown.... HARD work!

8 x 8 cell, a head, a sink and a cott

In Georgia prisons of the 1930s, not even the guards had it that good. The prisoners slept fastened by a long chain to a row of beds made of wooden planks. Infractions such as asking a guard the time were punished by flogging. Serious violations, such as "eyeballing" a passerby on the road, were dealt with more severely.

I read where Charles Ng, who tortured and murdered several people and was sent to California's death row, sued the prison because the dessert cookie placed on his tray was cracked, and the condition of the cookie upset him so much that he couldn't eat it. It cost the state $5,000 to defend itself in a hearing in which a nutrition expert testified that not eating the cookie posed Ng no nutritional threat.

There doesn't seem to be a recorded case of anyone on a 1930s Georgia chain gang suing the prison because he didn't like the dessert he got.

Agreed, but today, we have all the "bleeding hearts" that think the prisoners are not treated properly. So my claim of an 8 x 8 with toilet, sink & cot will handle the concerns of them (bleeding hearts). Twelve to fifteen hours of hard work and nothing to look forward to, day in and day out is all that a convicted individual needs. Rehabilitation comes in the form of tough rules and breaking the spirit of the inmates. If they survive the sentence then they can go free - just like the work camps of old!

And still, that is a better life than many of our young men & women. They committed no crime - they just decided to put their lives on the line for the rest of us! In combat, they have no sinks or toilets. No three squares or cots. No TV or video games. No clean laundry. Do you hear them complain? Screw the prisoners!

God Bless our boys & girls in the military!

Ditto concerning our military.

I agree that the government has gone too far incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders, especially while two monsters—each with more than 20 (!) burglary convictions—were free in Cheshire, Connecticut, to commit that state's crime of the century earlier this year. (Google Komisarjevsky Hayes for the horrendous details.)

The War on Drugs has succeeded only in making drugs of all kinds cheaper and more plentiful, and as with prohibition, it has created and fostered a drug-specific criminal class. It has also built a huge and apparently permanent edifice of special interests with a stake in keeping things exactly as they are. But I don't have the answer. Legalize drugs? Crack? Meth?

Yes, the U.S. incarcerates a lot of people, but too many nonviolent offenders and too few violent ones. A few miles from my house, violent felonies are committed one after another: stabbings, shootings, armed robberies, beatings, gang attacks, carjackings, and so on apparently without end. And that's just in Trenton, which is nothing compared to Newark or Camden. They catch maybe a fifth of the perps, but if you do the math, even conceding that juveniles routinely get a pass, there should be a million guys in New Jersey's prisons.

Anyone who thinks the authorities have a clue should know that NJ recently passed a law making it a crime to recruit for gang membership while on school property. Isn't that great? Just wait till those Bloods and Crips find out that if they're caught recruiting in science class, they'll have to go to the principal's office.

And yes, thank God for our brave and dedicated military.