midtnblu

Sometimes rules, unfair and misunderstood as they may be, are put in place for a reason.

Agreed there is no doubt the 3man outweighs 2man (insert own joke here). Just trying to point out that the "small school budget" doesn't typically support a 3rd guy and that's probably why it's not seen more often.

A couple of calls that 3-man crew really helps is balks on left-handers' move to first and check swings... agreed? Without a doubt, but it's not worth it to a coach on a tight budget and 3-man does not always provide you with the benefit you would expect (i.e. R1 with U1 in "A" (behind 1st)and U3 in "C" (SS area on grass). In this, and many other situations, the benefit of the 3rd umpire (U3 behind 3rd) for viewing a check-swing on a LH batter is lost. Same for RH batter when U1 has moved to the infield. Don't get me wrong, working 3-man, when done right, is overall more beneficial to all involved and would make our job easier but for most programs the cost vs. benefit doesn't substantiate it.

that's because the coaches know, much to disbelief of fans, that the addition/coverage of 1 more umpire on the field does not offset the added cost. 2 umpires or 3, the game is still decided by the players. And a good 2 man crew can work just as well, if not better, than a 3 man crew. In certain situations you may actually have missed coverages using 3-man with a crew member who is inexperienced at 3 man mechanics.

Regarding umpires, lights, start time of games etc.... here are some things to think about. 1. Like it was said here not all facilities have lights so games have to be started early 2. There are coaches that do not want lights. They know when it gets dark, they can go home. 3. If you start later, it will be colder, and it is already a crapshoot now with the temperature. 4. There are some games that do get changed from 6:00 to earlier in the day become of threat of rain or a drop in temperature. The season is so short, coaches have to get all district games complete by a certain date and anything they can do to keep from getting a game cancelled they will do it. Including starting a game earlier to play when it is 45 degrees instead of 35 degrees. Coaches schedule the games when it gives them the best opportunity to play the game in the best possible weather, with input from the opposing coach when making the schedule, and still trying to make it convenient for fans, albeit this third item is low on the priority list. And regarding being able to get better umpires if the games were started later....getting an "A" level umpire vs. a "B" level umpire is not going to show up in the win/loss column. Coaches know that games are won and lost by the teams on the field and they are not the ones on this forum complaining about the umpires.

Wood anyone??? I hope someday, sooner than later, the decision is made to change back to wood bats or some type of a composite that is comparable to wood. I know the bat manufacturers data shows that the BESR of a non-wood bat is comparable to a wood bat but the actual on-field results seem, IMO, to contradict the data. Huge undertaking? Sure. A few of the pros... Safer Truer game of "baseball" in many ways (pitching, defense, small ball etc...) Easier to evaluate an actual hitter Shorter games (time wise)--some % of batted balls that are typically hits become outs. Cons... Cost of continual bat replacement ???? Please add your thoughts to either side.

coachcap, the basic obstruction rule is common for all levels but the fine print for this rule varies between Fed, NCAA and OBR. The Fed version which requires the defensive person to have possession of the ball (as opposed to "about to receive the ball") when blocking a base is a safety issue, along with the malicious contact rule. Rule differences between Fed and OBR, of which there are many, are normally put in place for safety reasons.

No, in Sitch #2 above the runner is awarded home. You only have an out if the runner takes out the catcher.

I understand your point and agree that the umpire in this sitch must have "seen something" for him to make this call of obstruction. Regarding the catch22...if the runner goes hard into the catcher, you may have interference on the runner for "not avoiding" contact ) possible malicious if judged. If the runner slows, you have to determine the reason for slowing down. The location of the ball also has to be taken into account for all above, with the exception of anything malicious. I will say, according to the picture, the catcher has possession "during" contact but we can't tell if she had possession prior to contact. If the runner slowed down to keep from running into the catcher THEN the catcher caught the ball and THEN the contact was made, that would explain the obstruction call.

If you would reread the posts, I said it was all determined by where the catcher was standing. That, my friend, can be interpreted from the rule book. And I based my opinion assuming the catcher was on the plate, not up the line. If you would go back and read, you would see this. One more time for Joey 1. On the plate----no obstruction and if the runner goes through the catcher you may have malicious contact. Also, you could possibly get a DP if the umpire judged that another runner could have been retired by the catcher at another base. In this case it would be the runner closest to home. (this is similar to calling the batter/runner out at first for R1 interfering with a middle infielder trying to turn a double play. 2. Catcher up the line/in the path of the runner without the ball----obstruction, delayed dead ball (call time at end of all playing action or when a play is made on the obstructed runner), runner is awarded the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Now in #2 above, of the runner decides to malicously run into the catcher, even though the catcher is in the path, then you would not have obstruction as malicious contact supercedes obstruction. The runner would be called out and ejected.

Joey...put down the energy drink.... I said "assuming" the catcher was on/at the plate, and that it would be different if the catcher was up the line. I never said the runner should slide, in fact it is not required by the rulebook. I just offered that if there is a slide, alot of this would have been avoided(I guess I had on my coaches hat for that one). And lots of people are confused by all of the rules not just obstruction calls. In a perfect world everyone knows the rules like you and we don't have to go on a message board and try to give a little insight/opinion when there are situations like this. And if an umpire calls a strike at the top of the zone "as defined by the rule book" we wouldn't be discussing obstruction call on here would we? Done.

Depending on where the catcher is....I'm not protecting the runner by ruling obstruction against a catcher that is standing on the plate. What is she obstructing the runner from, continuing on to the dugout? If she slowed down to avoid contact with the catcher who was on the plate then that's the runner's fault and again I'm not protecting that. Run hard and don't be afraid to get your shorts dirty. This is all assuming the catcher is on/at the plate and the runner has a path to a portion of the plate, not up the line "impeding the path" of the runner. If the catcher is up the line then that's a different sitch altogether. By the way...this is a good discussion, don't get chippy.

NO! Running through a defensive player, could be ruled malicious contact and an automatic ejection. The option for the runner in this case is to avoid contact and let the umpire rule obstruction (delayed dead ball) if the runner's advancement was impeded. Now back to the OP...It's looks like from the picture all of this could have been avoided has the runner slid. If she slowed down to keep from running into the catcher, I'm not bailing the runner out of this. If she runs full speed and slides she probably beats the throw. Sliding will result in contact, maybe just enough to "distract" the catcher and prevent the catch. Yes, this is a HTBT play, but just giving an opinion based on the picture.

Pitts pitched 6 innings for Summertown. Harville closed it out. Mt. Pleaseant never really threatened in this one. Summertown kind of pecked away to score the 7 runs. They loaded the bases in the 2nd and 3rd but only scored once. They could have blown it open early with a couple of clutch hits. Who is the Pratt kid you mentioned that pitched for CA?

You know where it is though don't you....That little ride home from Summertown is always alot longer than the ride to summertown isn't it.

Summertown gave Temple all they wanted today. Down 15 points in the 2nd half and cut it to 4 with 3 minutes to go. Nobody plays with more guts and determination than the Summertown Eagle squad I saw play today. To the poster that said Temple had a "cakewalk" to the championship game...ask Temple what they think.

Parking $5 Ticket $7 Warnings about redlight cameras...priceless

I think with all the rain, Summertown was one of the few teams that was able to play yesterday.

Didn't mean to sound like I was defending Loretto...I am not connected to either team...just happened to be there as an "bystander". Is Biggler hurt? i didn't get a chance to ask anyone about last night.

A couple of defensive plays by Loretto and their still in the game. The kid from Loretto pitched a good game and gave his team a chance. This could very easily have been a 2-1 game.

The blind draw is fair...having the "best" 2 teams on the same side of the bracket us unlucky. And i don't believe Temple is assuming a cakewalk right now.

Cut out all the errors or add some punctation. Either way, everybody wins.

Playing in mt. pleasant was the obvious choice. Fan support was great from all around the area. The crowd was intense...so intense that in the 2nd half we were literally bringing down the house!!!

Just an assumption on my part, but Summertown's current players have played many games and are much more familiar with Mt. Pleasant's gymnasium as opposed to maybe never playing in the LC gym. Also, if you were there last night, you noticed there was no shortage of support for the Eagles. The drive to Mt. Pleasant wasn't a deterrent to anybody who wanted to support them.

and your point is....??? also, fyi...the seating capacity at summertown has been reduced recently due to some changes but i guess it doesn't really matter now does because the site of their next game has a capacity of about 11,520.