Call at First
 

Batter/Runner hits the ball to second baseman. Throw to first is dropped by first baseman near the foul line in the path of the batter/runner. Batter/runner steps into fair territory around the first baseman tags the base and falls about three feet towards second base off of first base. First baseman turns and tags the runner off the bag.

The call?

For what? You could have obstruction on F3, but I don't see anything else for the umpire to decide.

If I understand you correctly, F3 was in the way and that's why BR did this dance. In that case I've got obstruction resulting in the player not holding the base (which means I'm stretching a little to make the obstruction between 1st and 2nd). Dead ball, BR is awarded first only.
The call of out might be by the book, but I can't believe that's intentional.
________
Paxil classaction

The runner was saying they didn't make an attempt towards second base. There was no contact between F3 and the runner.

That is why there is no call on a tag.

Irrelevant

I don't think an attempt is relevant. They didn't overrun the base, they fell off of it.
________
Oliviya cam

Runner falls off the bag and are tagged, they are out. The obstruction of F3 didn't cause her to fall off the bag. She side stepped F3 touched the bag and fell off it.
Out in my opinion. Am I wrong.

Why did she fall off?
________
GLASS PIPES

Really? Define "overrun"? Where does the book say the runner must run through the base? Where does it state a runner must remain on their feet? The runner can do cartwheels, somersaults and back flips after touching 1B if they want as long as the umpire doesn't judge she made an attempt to advance.

The ONLY way this runner is called out is if the runner literally stopped while in contact with the base and then, in a completely separate action unaffected and unrelated to those attaining 1B, the player loses contact with the base and then is tagged with the ball while off base.

Call it however you want, but the correct call is nothing without the runner making an attempt toward 2b.

Where does the book say that the runner has to literally stop on the base and fall off of it? Maybe it does say that. I'm just asking where.

I smell troooooooooooooollllllllllsssss

What is the average wing beat of an unladened swallow?

ive heard of unladened spitters.

Overrun means to run beyond or past. They don't have to stay on their feet but to be entitled to the overrunning exception they do have to run past the base. Once they do that I agree with you that they can do whatever they want as long as it isn't an attempt.

If they ran to 1st and stepped on it and fell forward, I'd go with what you're saying as well, though as written a runner tripping over 1st base is liable to be put out.
________
How To Roll A Joint

being obstructed at first base negates any put out at first. but one could always try.

Citations please.

Where do you get this ****? Again, citations please.

What do you mean? African or European?
Paul

Citation: Rule 3.14159-common sense-"When a runner falls off 1B because she was going around F3, who obstructed her, don't call her out."

Do you really think she meant to advance in the OP? Because if I see this, I will judge she did not.

A runner tripping over falling over 1B is liable to be put out.....hmmm

Interesting.

The rule as to when a BR is liable to be put out is so very clear, I'm very suprised that this view is taken.

As the OP is written, I could probably agree with either call if you had your reasoning correct - but the reasoning or just bold face statements being pushed by some wants.

Boys and girls... even for the rule book challenged, there is a rules supplement for guidence.. RS 37



- They gotta make an attempt to advance

or

- LBR

Now if you want to call the runner out - please make a reasoning in accordance with the rules. Otherwise, the runner is safe. And as a side note, we could use a little less BS about wanting citations about things not being said and that are additionally and obviously not in the rule book.

as soon as the F3 loses control of the ball, she is in jeopardy of committing obstruction. I would call obstruction anyways and send the runner back to 1st. If the runner on her own initiative decides to run to 2nd, then I wave off the obstruction...

i once had obstruction on F4 on a runner sliding into 2nd, ball arrived a hair late. I signaled obstruction, the runner thought I was sending her to 3rd and just walked to 3rd and F4 just stood there watching the runner walk to 3rd!

I actually had a coach protest a call this past weekend and stop my whole game while we waited for the UIC (who moved none to fast I'll tell you) because he contended that a runner "running on their own to 2nd" negates OBS. Because he is a self proclaimed rules expert (as affirmed by his crowd) I did let him know that I was a little irritated that we were wasting time with this useless protest. I was able to save some time by advising the other team of the pending result of the protest before the UIC was even there.

I'm hoping that some of you are here to partake in the abundance of actual rules knowledge available to you as a resource on this forum.

What part of "a runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed" (aside from a few very specific instances) is confusing you?

We'll try to help you out.

Gravity stopped working for an instant in that one particular less than an iota's iota of the universe.

In case gravity WAS still working, and I was the uic/site coordinator for that particular field, we'd be placing her back on first base and let's play ball.

How young is Youngump?

Jes wondern

Perhaps not young at all. I thought it was Forrest's Asian offspring. :rolleyes:

If you're responding to my post, I was suggesting a runner tripping on the base. The base can't be guilty of obstruction.

If you're responding to the general thread, I agree in principal. But by rule, obstruction before the runner reaches first affords no protection on the far side of the bag.
________
Prilosec Lawsuit

cuz she was obstructed between home and 1st. I treat it like F3 flipped her over even though she managed to physically come in contact with 1st base, I'm still protecting her until she has gained solid control of 1st base. If she wants to go for 2nd on her own, that's at her own peril. If the fielder tackles her between 1st and 2nd, i'll give her 2nd and eject the fielder.

The rule is clear as a bell. A runner tagged off a base is out, except that a runner overruning first base is not out.
________
Avandia Class Action Lawsuit

RS 37 is about overrunning 1st base. If a runner doesn't overrun the base then nothing in that supplement applies. They are not entitled to the exception.
________
2SexyPussy live

I agree with your common sense approach. I think it matches the intent of the obstruction rule. It does not match either the intent or the wording of the overrunning rule. If it happened with no obstruction, the safe call would be totally unwarranted.
________
Laurell

Forget the OP and forget OBS for a second ---

So I'm clear - your contention is that a BR running to 1B who then trips over it and who lands on the other side of it, would not be considered overrunning first base and they are then eligible to be put out... (even with no attempt to advance - just merely based on the fact they tripped over 1b instead of staying on their feet).

My contention is that while this is technically correct, I'm sure in watching such a play unfold that I would find that runner had in fact overrun the base as part of tripping because I'm certainly never making such a call.

However, a runner who tripped on first base but did not fall past it (visualize an attempt to run right to the base and the runner falling off toward second) would be liable to be put out and I would call that runner out if tagged out just like I would someone who ran to second and fell off.

The fact that no attempt was made to second is not the determination I'm making here. The determination is if the runner overran the bag. (Which is a prerequisite of the overrunning exception. Once we determine they overran the bag, then anything that is not an attempt will keep them safe.)
________
apartments for sale Pattaya

I may be wrong, but......
1) I think the whole point of the discussion was that the fall off the base was related to obstruction, wasn't it?

2) later

She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

OK. In my opinion, you're an idiot.

;)

now that is funny. :p

Negative… unless you truly believed the runner was rounding the base to go for second when she tripped (which could be the case at lower levels. Many times have a heard the first base coach yell, go… go… go… after the ball gets away from the fielder at first base), otherwise you just have a BR that trip while overrunning first base and is allowed to return without liability of being put out.

However, if it was my judgment that she was rounding first to go to second I would not protect her to second due to the earlier obstruction. I would rule her out and get ready to explain to the OC that the obstruction happened before first, and she was protected to first. And, in my judgment she would not have reached second therefore she is out.

This is a HTBT situation, but umpires cannot protect a base runner for making a bad choice.

So a BR sliding past first, walking past first, taking one step beyond first, jogging past first would be eligible to be put out as they are not running past first?

"Plenty of base to touch" has no bearing on Obstruction. It is important that those of you offering opinions on rules take a few minutes and read the rules and definitions. Simply offering opinion that has absolutely no basis in rules is more akin to some idiot in the stand yelling "hands are part of the bat" than a discussion on an officiating forum.

The discussion of overrunning at least is admittedly a little ambigious as there is no case play or definition (that I could find) to use as a guide to define what exactly overrunning is --- obs is very clear so take a few moments and read up on it. Thanks.

B-1 hits a line drive to F-9 in a) the BR runs straight up the line and trips over the bag falling on to the ground on the RF foul line. in b) the BR takes a wide turn around the bag in order to be ready to go to second on an errant throw from F-9 but is pulling up and slowing down as she reaches 1B and trips over the bag falling into fair territory between 1B and 2B. In both cases F-9 throws the ball to F-3 who tags the runner off the base.

a) safe judged overrunning
b) out judged rounding the bag

I've read and reread everything I could find about obstruction and baserunning. There is nothing that clearly defines this call. Any other base she's out, no questions asked because I saw the play and don't feel she was obstructed (on that call I could be wrong but...). At first base the question comes in about the "overrunning".

I agree - nothing clearly spells out this call for use - hence the reason we have judgments based on rules.

Obstruction IS clearly defined, and nothing is mentioned about "plenty of base to touch".

It doesn't make any difference what you think her intentions were. I'm assuming this was not Mary Lou Retton attempting a forward double with a 1 1/2 twist trying to nail the landing.

At not time is a BR is required to stop and remain on 1B. Really don't care what the deal is at 2nd & 3rd as that is irrelevant to a BR at 1st.

"Overrunning" is a generic term undefined by ASA or any other rule set of which I am aware. There are no requirements stating the BR MUST be on his/her feet before, after or while contacting 1B.

Say what?

You received opinions (which are like...) and interpretations, but a few don't want to hear them because they don't agree. There are a lot of real ridiculous rules, but my opinion of them has no bearing on how I rule on the field.

[QUOTE=vcblue;598879]
However, if it was my judgment that she was rounding first to go to second I would not protect her to second due to the earlier obstruction. I would rule her out and get ready to explain to the OC that the obstruction happened before first, and she was protected to first. And, in my judgment she would not have reached second therefore she is out.

In the above post she cannot be out. If the obstruction happens prior to BR reaching first, the play is dead and obstruction awards are made. Subsequent out cannot take place.

[QUOTE=robbie;599004]What are you talking about??? (in bold) The OBS happened before first base and she is protected to first. Now if my "what-if" scenario she decides to continue on to second and is tag out, and in my judgment she would not have made second, she's out.

You don't protect a runner to the next base because she made a bad running decision. You protect her to the next base because you thought she would have made it had there been no OBS.

[QUOTE=vcblue;599033]Depends on where I rule she was obstructed. If the obstruction occurred AT first base, can you really call her out between first and second?

Just rule she tripped because of the obstruction, kill the play when she is tagged, put her at first base and everyone quit making giant circumlocular arguments.

Exactly. Obstruction is rarely an instantaneous moment in time or space; an obstructed runner is still obstructed until no longer impeded, and has regained any affect or result of attempting avoid the obstruction. In this case, as described, the BR was obstructed, and lost her balance as a result of the obstruction. It is, in my opinion, blatently wrong to even consider calling her out when the entire situation is clearly the result of the obstruction. What would it take to correct the result of this obstruction? Why, to NOT call her out.

This BR did exactly what the rulesmakers wish; instead of running over the obstructing F3, she made the effort to avoid the collision. In doing so, she lost her balance/footing/whatever, and tripped over the bag. She could have possibly fallen, then, in 4 directions; and it strikes me that some are arguing she is in jeopardy because of the direction in which she fell, when 3 of the 4 are clearly protected in ANY circumstance?

If you (not addressed to vcblue, the generic "you") can't figure out how she is protected on this play, you might want to reconsider why you are out there.

Actually Steve.. I'm not so sure that all are protecting this runner no matter what way she fell... which is unfortunate.

Some based on the theory that she was obstructed before 1b :rolleyes:
Some based on the theory falling over first is not over running it :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You know who needs to reconsider being on the field? Guys like you who think they are the ultimate judge and better than everyone else. I dealt with umps like you when I was a coach. Never wanted to explain a thing because you feel like everyone should be as "smart" as you. It is a forum for helping people; not a place for you to get your therapy.

Well, let's think about that. If obstructed before the base, and falls back toward home, then cannot be out by OBS rule. If falls forward toward right field, that HAS to be considered overrunning the base. If falls to the right, then (this may be the fallacy in my assumption about 3 sides), then SHOULD NOT be in jeopardy, since "turned" to the right.

So, the only side remaining is fell to the left.

Stated in response to me explaining absolutely every pertinent point of the obstruction rule, and how it clearly applies. If you think my responses aren't appropriate, boy, just hang around this forum some more.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You know because of comments like this and umps like you, i'm done asking questions on this board. Don't forget you are out there to help KIDS compete and enjoy a GAME. That's it. You aren't there to show off how much you think you know or flex your self-appointed power.

So 'old man' take a deep breath and remember to use all those hours buried in a rule book for something good. New umpires come on here to understand the rules better and get some help. Maybe you can turn off the ego and actually help people.

Man, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. I haven't been on this board for very long but I've always seen Steve as one of the most informed and helpful guys here. I have a lot of respect for him. Now, not so much for you.

And I'm sure a lot of umps had to deal with a coach like you. Take a pill.

Ted

Originally Posted by vcblue
However, if it was my judgment that she was rounding first to go to second I would not protect her to second due to the earlier obstruction. I would rule her out and get ready to explain to the OC that the obstruction happened before first, and she was protected to first. And, in my judgment she would not have reached second therefore she is out.

In the above post she cannot be out. If the obstruction happens prior to BR reaching first, the play is dead and obstruction awards are made. Subsequent out cannot take place.

What are you talking about??? (in bold) The OBS happened before first base and she is protected to first. Now if my "what-if" scenario she decides to continue on to second and is tag out, and in my judgment she would not have made second, she's out.

Pretty simple - well that is if other rule sets are the same.

In NSA, "The ball is dead and not in play p. When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he/she reaches first base."

In your example you said no protection past first because obstruction was before first. If so the play is dead.

Is this unique to NSA??

PS: I do not know how to show quotes from previous posts in blue like many of you do. Sorry - it would make it easier to read, but.......

Must be unique to NSA. ASA you are protect between the base where the OBS occurred. The ball is not dead until the runner is put out. The you kill it and award the proper base. However, in your judgment, if the runner attempts another base, and is tagged out before reaching that base you can award her that base. Otherwise she is out.

Wow,

At least you are done asking questions here. One less clueless troll.

Maybe YOU can quit thinking you already know everything and shut up and LISTEN AND READ AND LEARN AND GROW. Maybe you will some day go beyond just memorizing the rule book and read the umpire's manual, the case book, and learn there is also such a thing as rulebook right, ballpark wrong (among other things that can be learned if you'd just get off your hucking figh horse).

Otherwise, do NOT let the door bruise your @$$ on the way out. And stay the hell away from any field I am on.

Thanks for making my point even clearer.

The only point you've made to anyone on this forum is that you are a troll coach not here to ask questions or learn but rather to act like..


well a troll coach.

You think you are the first troll coach we've seen?

You give yourself way too much credit. You are a dime a dozen.

Shooo.

Certain uninformed persons / tolls have filled this thread with so much misinformation and mythical rules that it is nearly unreadable.

Namecalling? nice touch. I haven't coached in 10 years. I missed the game. Thought I could still have an impact and get back on the field. I've had a lot of fun. Had a question, found this forum. I've got some great input from some very helpful guys but a couple of you know how to ruin what could be a great thing. Namecalling, bullying, overblown egos...

I am not an expert umpire (not even close) what I am an expert on is reading people. And what I do know is this. People who resort to name-calling are very insecure.

Originally Posted by Badamk
You know because of comments like this and umps like you, i'm done asking questions on this board. Don't forget you are out there to help KIDS compete and enjoy a GAME. That's it. You aren't there to show off how much you think you know or flex your self-appointed power.

Coach or Parent (whatever you are)... What you forget is there are 9 to 15 players on the other side that also expect us to get the call right. So, when I here a coach say something like, "blue, we are here for the girls", I remind him/her that we are here for all the girls, not just his/hers.

Definitely not. I'm pretty sure that the rule doesn't apply that way. I'm only arguing that in the very strange case where the runner isn't going past first that just because she comes off the overrun rule doesn't apply.
Suppose an idiot BR decides to do a giant two footed jump stop onto 1st base to show up the opponents because she just drove in the go ahead run. And suppose that in doing that jump stop she loses here balance and falls backwards toward home. The fielder relays to the first baseman who tags her lying between 1st and home. Are you really saying, safe because she overran first since she's off the base and not making an attempt to second?

I thought I was the only one arguing that and I'm definitely protecting her no matter how she falls.
________
UNIQUE BOWL

Troll is not "name calling" any more than calling you "coach" is calling you a name.

It is a type of individual who visits forums with the sole purpose of disruption and causing trouble.

Such as yourself, coach.

And if you are unwilling to listen to internationally recognized and certified umpires such as Steve, then I'm quite sure you will make an "impact on the field" .. you will screw it up.

You're welcome. Now get the %$#k out of our space.

Thank God you haven't coached in 10 years. We don't need people like you screwing up our young people. Now amscray.

Why? Why do all of you keep placing morsels out there? :rolleyes:

The point WAS clear, early on. It's you that's arrogant, but too unknowing to realize that you don't know. So, go on back where you came from and tell all of you like-minded friends not to bother trolling here.

Because if all the bait were in one place, the bear would come get it and the trolls would starve.

Maybe, just maybe, it'd be a big bear and he'd eat the trolls.:D

No, that would be wrong. The umpire is NOT there to help the kids, that is the coaches' job. Umpires are there for one reason, the GAME, period. The umpire is there to ensure the participants enjoy a level playing field and that all the rules under which the participants agree to play are enforced equally and fairly. BTW, softball isn't just a kids game.

Talk about making something clear! You have made it quite clear that you do not know the rules and have little interest to do so. You have made it clear that you treat anyone who disagrees with your "belief" is wrong, an egomaniac and old. IOW, in this thread alone you have demonstrated you are clueless and choose to badmouth actual interpretations, not opinions, given by those who have umpired at the highest levels, been trained at the highest levels by those who ARE at the highest levels of the game.

You don't want to post any questions? Fine, but stick around and you may just learn something.

Say what you want about me. I came on here admitting I needed help. I didn't ask a question because I already knew the answer. Unlike some of you, I can admit I don't know everything.

I came on here to ask a question because I had a situation that I wasn't sure about. When I asked the question I was told I needed to reconsider being on the field in the first place. Somehow you magically claim to know me and know how I officiate a ball game.

Keep the insults coming. It makes it a very inviting place for newcomers to ask questions.

Call one of the most respected umpires in the fast pitch community, who was trying to NICELY help you, an "old man", mock him, then degrade him, then snivel?

You "coach", are a real piece of work... like so many of your ilk. I believe the term used by little ball guys "R.A.T." would be very appropriate, and perhaps how they came to think of your type in such terms.

I don't call all coaches and players rats. The overwhelming majority are well behaved, respectful, and understanding of the umpire's job. With me it is a term that has to be earned based on a pattern of behavior.

All that said...I smell a rat in this thread. ;)

I find it interesting Badamk that you attacked Steve. I don't know him at all but I've found him to be one of the most knowledgeable contributors on this board and I've learned a lot from him. I'm not a rookie but I am pretty new to umpiring so I pay a lot of attention to what is said and who says it. Steve has always been creditable nad he doesn't seem to spend time in chatter. He weighs in on occasion with a reasoned argument and he does a great job presenting the logic of his thoughts backed with rule references. In fact he does exacty what you say you want someone to do. But when he does it, you attack him because he didn't agree with you.

Back to your OP. If you are truly an umpire go read the ASA definition of obstruction. Pay close attention to the word impede. You described F3 impeding the BR. Furthermore it's not normal for a BR to stumble around on 1B. So it's not much of a stretch of the imagination for a BU to see obstruction right at 1B and conclude an unusual stumbling act immediately following to be a direct result of that obstruction. Of course this is really a case of HTBT.

I know a lot of the people on this board and have been around plenty long enough to know the difference between real umpires, arrogant umpires, concerned coaches and a$$hole coaches.
I have seen many trolls and many arrogant parents, players and umpire wannabe's.
This guy rates as a troll, a coach with an axe to grind trying to prove his "superior knowledge" or a player who wants to get even for a percieved slight in a call.
Either way, argueing with him is like trying to wrestle with a pig.
You both get dirty but he likes it.

Walk away
If he proves to be someone who isn't full of himself, he will decide to listen and ask legitimate questions.
With that comes legitimate responses on his part.

At best this is some clown that is a wannabe and hasn't figured out that rule myths he carries around in his head aren't real.

In other words guys, turn around and call your game. Ignore the idiot on the other side of the fence.

Many of you continue to call me names... shows your maturity. If you really have a problem go back and read all of my posts in this thread. I admitted I that I wasn't clear and was looking for clarity, I came on here asking a question. Your beloved Steve might be the smartest, greatest ump on the planet. Truth is he called me a "boy" and said I needed to reconsider being on the field. I called him an "old man" as a response.

Keep calling me a troll, idiot, rat or whatever and I hope it helps you feel better about yourself. Glad to help.

Promises, promises.

Well....technically....that last comment wasn't a "question." :D

As I reread the post, IMJ, he did no such thing. Lie #1

He did not such thing. Lie #2

That is true.

I don't need to call anyone anything and I really don't give a damn if you think you know better, you don't.

As suggested above, I went back and read the thread. No one attacked you until you went smart-***. In fact, you got more than enough answers to your question, but you didn't want to let it go. You received your clarification, yet continued to post arguments on the subject. As demonstrated above, you actually went looking for trouble by selecting two instances where a generic figure of speech was used and adopted that as a personal attack, on your own accord, not by someone's direction.

You may have been referred to as a troll because you acted the part, not because someone here thought it was a manly thing to do.

Yes, I know it's a big 'ole troll sandwich, but I was a little bored and it was interesting to recreate the thread and include just Badamk's statements (as requested by Badamk).....

ASA Rule 4-I 'After overrunning first base, the runner ATTEMPTS to continue to second base. (emphasis mine)

Although you didn't get a citation, you received your definitive answer here...you continued, though...

Irish then clarified the position and the proper ruling:

After this, everything went south...and from what I'm seeing, instigated by you...

At this point, this thread took on a life of it's own, with swallows, obstruction, other people jumping in, etc. You reply the next day with:

As has been clarified before, the only thing that matters is 'was the runner attempting to go to 2nd base'? As posted, I see this a continuation of the play at 1st base. Now, if all play stopped, everyone's resetting for the next batter (i.e. there's a discernable break in play), then the runner falls down/off the bag...yes, they're now in jeapordy. It doesn't matter that the runner wasn't attempting to overrun the base...only that they WERE NOT attempting to go to 2nd.

These are more inflammatory statements usually attributed to those who are looking to 'pick a fight' with others...

Irish once again tried to clarify:

Your reply...

All of your subsequent posts are a variation of the above with nothing constructive or related to your OP.

As I read all this, you asked a question and had it answered by multiple people with the same answer. For whatever reason, you didn't like this answer and tried to justify your interpretation. Absent any additional info from your original post, I agree with the others that there was no attempt made to continue to 2nd and therefore the runner is able to return to 1st base without liability to be put out.

To answer your latest post:

Nowhere did you state that you weren't clear, and you didn't accept the clarity that was provided to you.

Damn. I could have used your help back when I was trying to understand long division.

Yeah... you're right... I just made that up.

what a snivel fest.

Get over it coach.

Not that I really care what you think, but ever consider that maybe he wasn't addressing you as "boy?" Substitute the word "gee" for "boy," and I think you'll read what Steve ACTUALLY meant.

Steve's got more class than that.

Thanks for the quotes and yes, it is now obvious that you made that up.

Both of the words on which you are hanging your offended hat are generic figures of speech and it is even noted in the one AND NOT EVEN TOWARD YOU!

Don't we have a reading comprehension expert on this board? Yo, Greymule, got a minu......er, week to straighten this out? :D

easily offended people around here, including the ones pming me demanding this or that really need to get some thicker skins and get over themselves a little.

Badmk, you wouldn't happen to coach a traveling team from say...Napa, or perhaps Reno, would you?

I'm getting flashbacks back to a local Memorial Day snivel fest...err tournament from 2001-2002. :eek:

Badmk

Are you a private or public high school supporter?

By now it's pretty clear Badamk is the coach of a team that was on defense that didn't get the out call they wanted at 1B. Or perhaps the parent of, say, the first base man of that team. He's been pushin and pushing to get someone on here to agree the BR should be called out. He's so adamnat that it is increasingly transparent.

I was behind on my reading and missed when one of my many board favorites, altumpsteve, was unfairly attacked by a coach and I did not want to resurrect this absurd thread. But since its back at the top..........

Hey Coach, you could not have picked out a more gentle knowledgable guy to go after. He consistently patiently passes on his knowledge in an understandable manner for newbie Blues and coaches like me.

Please either go away, or apologize, or both.