To honor Jackie Robinson. His number is retired in every MLB ballpark. Was it last year they started doing that for one day in the season?

Thanks

From what I saw/heard while watching it live, Bob, no, he wasn't.

For the last couple seasons there was a fair amount of player/media debate over who should be wearing 42...some said only one player per team, some said, only the african americans should wear it...then MLB got smart, kept it simple and said, we're all wearing 42, even the umpires. done. best thing they could've done with JR day

I agree. What Jackie Robinson did may have seemed insignificant, but when one looks back at it, it was quite important, and as his widow said at Citi Field Wednesday, he would have been both proud and overwhelmed by what happened.

[QUOTE]They might as well re-write the rule book.

We have had the following:

A run put back on the Board some 3 innings later in the Indians O's game 2-3 yrs ago

Mets/ Braves - Botched Catch / No catch with bases juiced.
Ruling: the ball was retroactively declared dead at the time of the incorrect call - everyone up one base even though a runner passed another and all kinds of action going on.

Now this

Summary: Do not feel bad when us amateurs kick one - It happens

Pete Booth

Pete ...
 

I know you will probably diagree, but everything they did followed one basic tenant: "Common sense and fair play!" The objective of the game and purpose of the rules is to ensure that both teams have an equal playing field and neither team is placed at an unfair disadvantage. With that said, "Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

Ask Jim Evans that. He'll tell ya.

Jim is a very great man and he has taught me a lot, but his voice is still only one man's. And sense you seem to know his view on the subject, please share.

His voice may only be one man's, but has has stated more than once that baseball's rules ought to be rewritten in a way to eliminate contradictions, ambiguities, etc. Doing so, he explains, would result in the rules making more sense than they currently do.

[QUOTE]Durham I hear you but we do not rule with "Common sense and fair play"

Example: F1 throws one high and inside. B1 trying to get out of the way but ball nics bat and dribbles out in front of home plate where F2 picks it up and the defense gets an easy out.

Now common sense and fair play would tell us that B1 was simply trying to avoid getting '"drilled" and the ball should simply be ruled FOUL. After all the Offense was put at a disadvantage and B1 was not trying to HIT the ball but simply protect himself.

If we rule by common sense and fair play then why have a rule-book at all.

Many rules make no sense but yet we are asked to enforce them.

At least 230 reasons why.

take a look at appeals. In discussing appeals ALL the KNOWN authorities use the terms "relaxed" / un-relaxed" You will NOT find those terms in the rule-book.

Pete Booth

I ain't broke so ...
 

Well, the NCAA continually tries to clarify their rule book and remove ambiguity and look at how much thicker it seems to get each year. And all the while the rules stay essentially unchanged. The OBR has worked for a hundred years with slight changes along the way, leave it alone.

I am no authority so maybe that is why I ask, "What in the world do relaxed and unrelaxed refer too?"

Part of the reason the NCAA book seems to get thicker is because IMHO they're too concerned about things that may not be as critical as they believe, or because they seem to want to create new things about which to worry every year.

The coaches having to wear helmets now is one example.

Relaxed/Unrelaxed
 

The terms refer to the status of the runner upon whom the appeal is being made. If the runner is making an attempt to return to the bag after missing it then a tag must be applied. If the runner is not attempting to return then the action is unrelaxed and the base can be touched and a verbal appeal made.