I think I'm getting old, or just mean. Or both.

For months, Ken and I have been waiting for our complex to reinstall the fences on either side of our patio, which would privately enclose it, like it is supposed to be.

Well, the kids who live here love to run up and down the whole length of the building, especially across our patio. And they are loud and have left trash behind, etc.

So, we placed our two benches sideways across our patio where the fences are supposed to go to hopefully prevent the running back and forth and keep them out of our area. We also placed our two very thorny rose bushes along that length of patio as well, to discourage them from just climbing over or jumping the benches.

So, does this mean we officially hate kids yet?

I just hate having to raise other people's children. When I was a kid, I was taught not to enter other people's yards and driveways when out playing, and it didn't "restrict my childhood" one bit. Are manners just not taught these days?

You're not any meaner than I am (which is not realy a compliment). ;)

It came up as an issue again because earlier this year there was a week where there were three blown calls on whether a home run was fair or foul. And another where there was a question of fan interference.

It is one those things that generally arises whenever there's a statistical clumping and we saw one in May.

T - I think that is a reasonable thing to do. It's your area, you want it for your use.

You're also protecting yourself from liability if they happen to hurt themselves on "your side" and protecting your property that is on your patio.

I was unaware of the abnormality. While I could see where IR could help, I would still rather stay with no IR and work on the umpires.

Actually, they are opening themselves up TO liability by placing the benches and bushes. If the kids hurt themselves on their patio as the owners maintained it, the liability would be on the owners exclusively.

oh.

No that's not hate. Setting up a tiger trap with real bamboo stakes on the other hand.....

Here's an example of why I think replay would be bad on anything but the most resettable of decisions, replay for everything leads to trouble:

Scenario 1
Two outs. Batter hits a stinger to third. Third baseman makes a diving catch and makes a snag that is rules a clean catch. Third out. Batter never even makes it 20 feet down the baseline before stopping and heading to the dugout.

Replay shows the ball actually touched the ground before being caught. It was definitely a ball in play but there would have still been a chance of making the out at first anyway. Do you:

1. Award the runner first
2. Assume he'd have been out anyway
3. Continue the at bat (but with what count)


Scenario 2:
Runner on third. Batter swings at pitch and the ball goes straight back to the backstop. Umpire calls it a foul tip. Runner stays at third. Replay shows it was actually a clear miss by the batter and the pitch was actually a passed ball. If correctly called the runner on third probably would have scored. Do you:

1. Award the runner home place and score the run
2. Run the exact situation through a sabremetric database to calculate the historical odds of scoring on that play and then roll a die to determine the outcome.
3. Leave the runner on third (in which case, why have the replay)

The benches are still on our patio though, well within the fence borders. If they don't wander onto our patio, they won't come in contact with 'em.

I'm just sick of my work being interrupted by the distraction.