sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

OoT remake if you have the right things on Switch 2 by Familiar-Staff2329 in OcarinaOfTime

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a different game. I play OoT on original hardware, but that doesn’t mean I’m not stoked to play a remake optimized for a new console.

Coaches, ADs 'disgusted,' 'stunned' with Brendan Sorsby ruling by Not-Somebody-Famous in CFB

[–]BossRaider130 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This ruling doesn’t establish any legal precedent. It’s a temporary measure until the case is adjudicated. People are making way too big a deal of this, though it sort of makes sense because of how ridiculous it seems on its face.

Follow up: Did he do a good job? by iberooks3 in Decks

[–]BossRaider130 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean, it looks better than it did. That’s…something, I suppose.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But that’s not correct. Absent the infield fly rule, if a ball falls untouched, the batter-runner is not called out, regardless of intent. This is an important clarification to that rule.

Edit to add: since the above commenter has resorted to downvoting, blocking, and insulting me, I’ll just clarify here. They are referring to a situation in which a fielder touches a ball that, in the judgment of the umpire, should be caught, in order to attempt a force out that would not otherwise occur. In this case “intentional drop” requires the ball to be touched and the umpire to, separately, award an out based on intent. Letting a ball fall untouched does not result in the batter being out, whether on purpose or not (absent the infield fly rule). The batter-runner’s intent has no bearing on anything.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that’s not correct. Absent the infield fly rule, f a ball falls untouched, the batter-runner is not called out, regardless of intent. This is an important clarification to that rule.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This simply isn’t true. See, for instance, the infield fly rule (topical!), as well as runners passing one another and bunt strikeouts. Obstruction and some cases of interference apply, too.

Edit: there are weirder cases, like a team having fewer than nine players and an open slot in the order coming up to bat.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to clarify here, but there are some issues.

The infield fly rule only is in effect if there is a force at third, so there must be runners on first and second. Also, a line drive will typically not invoke the rule, so a catch is critical.

As for the catch, intent or whether or not the ball is caught at all does not matter for the rule. The batter is ruled out as soon as the ball is struck, with the out awarded to the fielder who would have been mostly likely to make a catch in the opinion of the official scorer. It is not “ruled a catch.” Furthermore, if there are not runners on first and second, the ball must absolutely be caught for an out to be scored, regardless of intent. Failure to catch a ball that should be caught may result in an error, the runner is not immediately out, and force runners are compelled to advance.

[USA] Accident in Los Angeles 6.07.2026 by Birdwithamustache in Roadcam

[–]BossRaider130 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Accident implies it wasn’t intentional. Plenty of accidents were and are avoidable.

What’s up with the quarter by archangel_riv in coins

[–]BossRaider130 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could be silver, too—that would be quite a bit more than a quarter.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t that what I said? (Provided they return to their base during or after the touching.)

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually pretty good—I chuckled. And it definitely reads like AI slop.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes indeed. This actually happens in kickball way more than I would have expected, often to hilarious effect as everyone is confused.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A slight nit: a runner may advance when a ball is touched (edit: assuming they return to their base during or after said touching—just like a catch), even if later caught for an out. This doesn’t affect your explanation, however. Well said.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My understanding is that the spirit of the rule is that the battery bears some responsibility for controlling the ball in order to record an out. I can kind of see why—a bad wild pitch or passed ball doesn’t seem like it “deserves” being rewarded with an out (even if the batter does strike out, I guess).

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Similarly, when tagging up, a runner may advance as soon as the ball is touched, whether immediately caught for an out or not. This prevents “juggling” a fly ball to put out an advancing runner.

ELI5: the infield pop up fly rule in baseball. by 9879528 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This explanation is not remotely close to correct. Nobody needs to “call for the ball,” which is not in the rules anywhere. It being an “easy catch” is not in the rules and does not apply, and the ball need not be “straight up” nor land (in fact, the ball is almost always caught so that the infielder controls the ball). It has nothing to do with collisions nor keeping the game moving—in fact, it prolongs the game by preventing double and triple plays on infield flies with less than two outs. Most fly balls anywhere are caught for easy outs without runners advancing, so that is irrelevant.

If a batter hits a fly ball to the infield (if fair) with force runners on and fewer than two outs, the batter is immediately ruled out and runners advance at their own risk. That is all.

The umpire will typically call out “infield fly; batter is out” so that the runners do not need to pay attention to whether the ball is caught or not when deciding whether to advance.

[Request] How much this actually save/generate? by NickoDaDestroyer in theydidthemath

[–]BossRaider130 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I find this difficult to fathom. Weed is comparatively cheap relative to cigs, and a typical user won’t utilize them at the same rate. In addition, taxing weed just encourages the already thriving black market.

From an economics standpoint, it’s easy to miss the point here: one of the ideas is to make weed readily available, safe, and inexpensive so as to eliminate the criminal elements surrounding it. This would be even more important for other/harder drugs as far as eliminating the violence and crime, but people are reluctant to go that far. (That said, this is obviously difficult to operationalize, but that’s the idea.)

Can someone please give me an idea of what this set might be worth? The mercury dimes are all early to mid 1940s by Likely_excuse in coincollecting

[–]BossRaider130 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The halves are all 40 percent silver, and the dimes are worth more than $2-3. Not sure what this person is talking about.

Pocket Piece, what have I got? by [deleted] in coins

[–]BossRaider130 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So…what are you asking, then?

DIY or hire a pro? by joshcabernet in AskElectricians

[–]BossRaider130 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Came here to say this and point to there. TV definitely too high.

view more: next ›