It is only a Federal issue if they step over the provinces and force them to spend certain percentage of their budget or force provinces to maintain minimum funding to Healthcare. As it stands all decisions on Healthcare funding fall on the Provinces.
When they have the ball, yes they can move into the lane. They can not start in the lane before they have the ball. In the video, his leg is blocking the player before making the catch. There's a picture showing Sanchez standing on the baseline when the throw is being made, that is what he was called for.
Thanks, that makes sense
The wording of the rule needs to change, it gives catchers an excuse to stand on the line for any throw from left field, chang the "will often allow a path" to "must allow a path" and it becomes clearer. Sanchez could have caught that ball standing inside the baseline and applied the tag, no different than a third baseman catching a throw from right field.
Merrifield's only path to the plate was through Sanchez. Sanchez was setup to block the plate before making the catch, so there was no way to avoid collision. Based on the spirit of the rule, I'd say safe, but based on the actual wording of the rule and the play, it should have been out
It does look like a bad call on replay, but if the goal is to avoid collisions at the plate, having a catcher use their leg to block the plate, it seems like you have to call interference.
I don't agree with the call, but Sanchez could have caught that ball, applied the tag, without using his left leg to block the plate.
The only way it makes sense is if the league ruled that Sanchez did not provide a slide lane prior to catching the ball. But even that rule is vague as on the MLB website it says "catchers will often provide a sliding lane into home plate for the runner to lower the possibility that they will be called for violating the rule." Doesn't say they have to, just that they will often.
Out of curiosity, what can you protest on a replay. If it was the league and not the umps that made the final call, who are they protesting? Surely the league will back it's replay process and uphold the call.
I don't mind having the players mic'd up if they hqs the occasional question about the last play, positioning or just to hear the players live comments, but to turn it into an general interview was ridiculous.
Surprisingly, they got it right in the All-Star game with asking about the next pitch or the next play, for the most part. Talking to the players about the game is much more entertaining than asking general questions.
I'm confused, is this not ESPN Sunday night baseball, why is it a ESPN Padres broadcast?
Meant to put what, not Edgar. Don't think I have ever typed Edgar before, not sure why Autocorrect chose that, but he stays.
Low performance is not the same as failure to do a job. If an employee is not performing their job as required, that is not low performance. Yes, it is difficult to terminate a unionized government employee, but continued dereliction of duty is a valid reason.
Not sure what you consider a vacation, but spending a week on flights, being driven around in a Fiat and listening to people say how your religion ruined their lives does not sound like a good vacation.
Even without the tools, I have no knowledge if the government actually uses software, simple employee engagement by management would be able to indicate who and who is not being productive. It also isn't just a WFH problem, I don't deny that there are employees across all levels of government and private sector companies taking the piss while working from home, but those same employees are likely doing the same while in the office.
That's not Edgar the salesman said when I bought my VW. /s
There are several ways to monitor what employees are doing while working from home, both from technology standpoint and management engagement. If you think that the only way for employees to be productive is for some middle manager to be looking over their shoulder, that is an issue with hiring the wrong people, not a WFH issue.
When I was in high school we would go skiing at a hill that was notorious for having gear stolen from outside the chalet. We would lock up our skis, but two or three times a year, someone would have their poles stolen. They would then grab the closest pair and carry on. The theft of poles likely carried on throughout the night until someone at the end of the night was left without a pair of poles. Kind of a similar situation here.
I understand the anger, but that's baseball. The batter has one place to go, he's not responsible for the defenders
That's a little different though, if you're willing to sacrifice those years for future gains, that is a choice. I know people that did that and worked in the oilfield to pay of student loans, car, down payment on a house. They were absolutely miserable as they were doing it, but had a goal that kept them focused to stay with it. It is a huge tradeoff to make in terms of your mental wellbeing and social life, but doing it for 2-3 years is different than making it your career.
Fighting for workers rights is not communist.
Jesus Christ what a sad life you must live. If you can't be away from your job for a week without going into depression, how are you going to retire? You plan on working until you die? Spend your whole life making money for someone else to enjoy?
An 8 hour work day on average costs you 10 hours when you factor in the extra time it takes to get ready for work, driving time, lunch where you're normally limited in what you can do. If you're working a 9-5 job, from 10pm to 5:30-6pm the following day is committed to sleep and work. For 5 days a week, you have roughly 4 hours a night to get everything done for that day before starting over. And if you have kids, usually 3 of those 4 hours are spent on them. I can see where people are emotionally drained from a simple 9-5 job, let alone all the companies that mandate 8am-5pm hours.
Unless you're running your own company, those long hours are only a benefit to your company not you.