|
Post by TEM on Nov 1, 2019 15:46:36 GMT -5
I'm still 100% in favor of a robotic strike zone. Some of those calls were outrageous. Both ways. There is no need to get calls wrong anymore. I see an inherent problem with that. It would have to be either laser or infrared detectors surrounding the plate .How would it discern the batter, the catchers glove and the bat from the ball? All would interfere with the detection instrumentation. Even with a series of cameras. I think you would need at least 3. Cross view ,straight on view, and a down view. The batter leaning over the plate or the catcher mitt inhibits the view of one of them will produce a non-call or ambiguous call (one camera call sees a strike and another sees a ball. There a lot of visual noise going on with a pitch that the human brain can filter out that a machine would have trouble with.
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Nov 1, 2019 16:10:46 GMT -5
I'm still 100% in favor of a robotic strike zone. Some of those calls were outrageous. Both ways. There is no need to get calls wrong anymore. I see an inherent problem with that. It would have to be either laser or infrared detectors surrounding the plate .How would it discern the batter, the catchers glove and the bat from the ball? All would interfere with the detection instrumentation. Even with a series of cameras. I think you would need at least 3. Cross view ,straight on view, and a down view. The batter leaning over the plate or the catcher mitt inhibits the view of one of them will produce a non-call or ambiguous call (one camera call sees a strike and another sees a ball. There a lot of visual noise going on with a pitch that the human brain can filter out that a machine would have trouble with. I think they are using an automatic system in one of the minor league levels. Too lazy to actually look it up right now, but I seem to remember this being discussed on one of the sports talk shows.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 1, 2019 16:51:28 GMT -5
I see an inherent problem with that. It would have to be either laser or infrared detectors surrounding the plate .How would it discern the batter, the catchers glove and the bat from the ball? All would interfere with the detection instrumentation. Even with a series of cameras. I think you would need at least 3. Cross view ,straight on view, and a down view. The batter leaning over the plate or the catcher mitt inhibits the view of one of them will produce a non-call or ambiguous call (one camera call sees a strike and another sees a ball. There a lot of visual noise going on with a pitch that the human brain can filter out that a machine would have trouble with. I think they are using an automatic system in one of the minor league levels. Too lazy to actually look it up right now, but I seem to remember this being discussed on one of the sports talk shows. Weather conditions can alone can effect it. The worst case scenario would be snow . You can have flurry squalls in the early season. If it cannot work flawlessly in those conditions. What about blowing leaves? There are so many contingencies that would have to be tested at 100% accuracy for it to be alternative to human umps. If it is not perfect every time all the time. There is no point in implementing it until it is.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Nov 1, 2019 18:12:18 GMT -5
I'm still 100% in favor of a robotic strike zone. Some of those calls were outrageous. Both ways. There is no need to get calls wrong anymore. I see an inherent problem with that. It would have to be either laser or infrared detectors surrounding the plate .How would it discern the batter, the catchers glove and the bat from the ball? All would interfere with the detection instrumentation. Even with a series of cameras. I think you would need at least 3. Cross view ,straight on view, and a down view. The batter leaning over the plate or the catcher mitt inhibits the view of one of them will produce a non-call or ambiguous call (one camera call sees a strike and another sees a ball. There a lot of visual noise going on with a pitch that the human brain can filter out that a machine would have trouble with. They are already using it in the minors. Some of them. I think it uses the same box we see in TV and if the path touches the box, a light lights up. Example, red for strike, blue for ball. I dont think you are giving tech enough credit. They already have way more then enough tech to get this implemented soundly. The umpires union doesnt want it however, because that is the "King" of jobs. You control the game.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 1, 2019 18:34:01 GMT -5
I see an inherent problem with that. It would have to be either laser or infrared detectors surrounding the plate .How would it discern the batter, the catchers glove and the bat from the ball? All would interfere with the detection instrumentation. Even with a series of cameras. I think you would need at least 3. Cross view ,straight on view, and a down view. The batter leaning over the plate or the catcher mitt inhibits the view of one of them will produce a non-call or ambiguous call (one camera call sees a strike and another sees a ball. There a lot of visual noise going on with a pitch that the human brain can filter out that a machine would have trouble with. They are already using it in the minors. Some of them. I think it uses the same box we see in TV and if the path touches the box, a light lights up. Example, red for strike, blue for ball. I dont think you are giving tech enough credit. They already have way more then enough tech to get this implemented soundly. The umpires union doesnt want it however, because that is the "King" of jobs. You control the game. I do not have any faith or should anyone in that tech. It is1 dimensional and can show a false appearance of acracy. Without seeing it from all 3 aspects of three dimensional space. It is ambiguous result and unprovable. The ball can look to brake over the corner but it can be 8" in front of it.
|
|
|
Post by NAVY2323(ret) on Nov 1, 2019 21:25:56 GMT -5
I have no idea if Beltran will be any good, but here is what isn’t surprising. Girardi 3 year deal worth 3 mil AV. Beltran 3 year deal worth 3m total. And if you don’t think that was the main factor for the Coupons you don’t know who owns the Mets.
|
|
|
Post by NAVY2323(ret) on Nov 1, 2019 21:57:10 GMT -5
They are already using it in the minors. Some of them. I think it uses the same box we see in TV and if the path touches the box, a light lights up. Example, red for strike, blue for ball. I dont think you are giving tech enough credit. They already have way more then enough tech to get this implemented soundly. The umpires union doesnt want it however, because that is the "King" of jobs. You control the game. I do not have any faith or should anyone in that tech. It is1 dimensional and can show a false appearance of acracy. Without seeing it from all 3 aspects of three dimensional space. It is ambiguous result and unprovable. The ball can look to brake over the corner but it can be 8" in front of it. Less faulty than humans and zero capacity for bias. There is no question it is a better option.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 2, 2019 7:20:28 GMT -5
I do not have any faith or should anyone in that tech. It is1 dimensional and can show a false appearance of acracy. Without seeing it from all 3 aspects of three dimensional space. It is ambiguous result and unprovable. The ball can look to brake over the corner but it can be 8" in front of it. Less faulty than humans and zero capacity for bias. There is no question it is a better option. Not bias? Once a flaw is discovered . As with all computer systems the flaws will be found. They will be exploited to direct the outcome of the game. So instead if 10 pitches being ambiguous by a human ump . There could be 40 to 50 a game because of a flaws in the system. Once a team finds an exploitable flaw . Do you think that team will share that information with the rest of the league?
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Nov 2, 2019 8:02:25 GMT -5
Less faulty than humans and zero capacity for bias. There is no question it is a better option. Not bias? Once a flaw is discovered . As with all computer systems the flaws will be found. They will be exploited to direct the outcome of the game. So instead if 10 pitches being ambiguous by a human ump . There could be 40 to 50 a game because of a flaws in the system. Once a team finds an exploitable flaw . Do you think that team will share that information with the rest of the league? Exploitable flaw? It's a ball or strike. In the zone or not. They would have the TV broadcast confirming every pitch. I for one and annoyed at watching Aaron Judge get a strike call at the shins every at bat just because he is much taller than the average baseball player. What's a strike for Jose Altuve is not for Judge. Robo ump will help him out greatly. They need personalized K zones for each hitter. Make it universal across the board what that means. Knees to letters or smaller. But needs to be consistant. Again, the technology is there.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 2, 2019 8:21:26 GMT -5
Not bias? Once a flaw is discovered . As with all computer systems the flaws will be found. They will be exploited to direct the outcome of the game. So instead if 10 pitches being ambiguous by a human ump . There could be 40 to 50 a game because of a flaws in the system. Once a team finds an exploitable flaw . Do you think that team will share that information with the rest of the league? Exploitable flaw? It's a ball or strike. In the zone or not. They would have the TV broadcast confirming every pitch. I for one and annoyed at watching Aaron Judge get a strike call at the shins every at bat just because he is much taller than the average baseball player. What's a strike for Jose Altuve is not for Judge. Robo ump will help him out greatly. They need personalized K zones for each hitter. Make it universal across the board what that means. Knees to letters or smaller. But needs to be consistant. Again, the technology is there. So humans in the broadcast booth will confirm every pitch for integrity. I thought the goal was to take humans out of it completely? How many hours will that add to the game? As I said you would need 3 cameras to build a 3d image of the plate on every pitch. Without one of them . There is no way to see if it is in the strike zone. Because the strike zone with every batter is slightly different because of his height. One camera out in center field can not give that accuracy you and whoever else is saying it can.
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on Nov 2, 2019 10:30:49 GMT -5
Not surprising. I'll withhold comment until I see the results. Not the way I thought they should go, though.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 2, 2019 10:37:29 GMT -5
Not surprising. I'll withhold comment until I see the results. Not the way I thought they should go, though. I hope Beltran understands the perception from a Managers point of view. My biggest concern.
|
|
|
Post by giantlegacy on Nov 2, 2019 11:08:37 GMT -5
Hope for ths best I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on Nov 2, 2019 11:44:58 GMT -5
Not surprising. I'll withhold comment until I see the results. Not the way I thought they should go, though. I hope Beltran understands the perception from a Managers point of view. My biggest concern. My biggest concern is that he knows how to manage personnel. Not sure he has ever had to do that. It's one thing to be respected as a teammate, another as a boss. I believe they just want someone they can control. But he has clashed with them before. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Nov 2, 2019 12:22:48 GMT -5
Not surprising. I'll withhold comment until I see the results. Not the way I thought they should go, though. I hope Beltran understands the perception from a Managers point of view. My biggest concern. I was hoping the Mets would hire Edwardo Perez (or anybody else besides Beltran) because Brian Cashman loved having him in his front office, so I didn't want to see Beltran leave. I think Carlos Beltran was a good hire.
|
|
|
Post by SG88 on Nov 2, 2019 14:31:28 GMT -5
I hope Beltran understands the perception from a Managers point of view. My biggest concern. I was hoping the Mets would hire Edwardo Perez (or anybody else besides Beltran) because Brian Cashman loved having him in his front office, so I didn't want to see Beltran leave. I think Carlos Beltran was a good hire. I agree. Beltran was an excellent hire
|
|
|
Post by NAVY2323(ret) on Nov 2, 2019 16:28:21 GMT -5
Less faulty than humans and zero capacity for bias. There is no question it is a better option. Not bias? Once a flaw is discovered . As with all computer systems the flaws will be found. They will be exploited to direct the outcome of the game. So instead if 10 pitches being ambiguous by a human ump . There could be 40 to 50 a game because of a flaws in the system. Once a team finds an exploitable flaw . Do you think that team will share that information with the rest of the league? Preposterous. Secret flaws? Exploitable by only 1 team? It’s not some super computer it’s a computer to determine balls and strikes.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 3, 2019 8:20:21 GMT -5
I hope Beltran understands the perception from a Managers point of view. My biggest concern. I was hoping the Mets would hire Edwardo Perez (or anybody else besides Beltran) because Brian Cashman loved having him in his front office, so I didn't want to see Beltran leave. I think Carlos Beltran was a good hire. Until he can prove he can Manage . I am not convinced
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 3, 2019 8:39:44 GMT -5
Not bias? Once a flaw is discovered . As with all computer systems the flaws will be found. They will be exploited to direct the outcome of the game. So instead if 10 pitches being ambiguous by a human ump . There could be 40 to 50 a game because of a flaws in the system. Once a team finds an exploitable flaw . Do you think that team will share that information with the rest of the league? Preposterous. Secret flaws? Exploitable by only 1 team? It’s not some super computer it’s a computer to determine balls and strikes. Really? I work in IT security . I have seen first hand the flaws in supposed test systems. I will ask you these simple questions. How can it see if it is the front of the plate or 5 -8" in front of the plate taking a picture from center field? How does it determine where the plate is from 400 feet away? How can it see the difference in the strike zone from a Player that is 5"10 or 6'5"? How would it surmise the difference form a leaf blowing across the plate from the ball, Snow from the ball? Rain from the ball? The truth is you probably would need a super computer with multiple cameras with software that can meld the images together with object identification that can be done in a spilt second. Because that is what the Ump does. Do you think you laptop or phone can do that? Do you really think that Display they show on TV is accurate? You do release the camera is 400+ feet away and the ball is traveling at 90+ miles an hour.
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on Nov 3, 2019 9:35:13 GMT -5
Preposterous. Secret flaws? Exploitable by only 1 team? It’s not some super computer it’s a computer to determine balls and strikes. Really? I work in IT security . I have seen first hand the flaws in supposed test systems. I will ask you these simple questions. How can it see if it is the front of the plate or 5 -8" in front of the plate taking a picture from center field? How does it determine where the plate is from 400 feet away? How can it see the difference in the strike zone from a Player that is 5"10 or 6'5"? How would it surmise the difference form a leaf blowing across the plate from the ball, Snow from the ball? Rain from the ball? The truth is you probably would need a super computer with multiple cameras with software that can meld the images together with object identification that can be done in a spilt second. Because that is what the Ump does. Do you think you laptop or phone can do that? Do you really think that Display they show on TV is accurate? You do release the camera is 400+ feet away and the ball is traveling at 90+ miles an hour. Ok. I work in IT too. And I dont understand why your are claiming it would have to be 400 feet away. Also, you do know there are relatively compact devices called Trackman that perfectly track a golfball for hundreds of yards. It even knows it's exact velocity, spinrate, hight and distance. Not saying there wouldn't be challenges, but its certainly easier than you are claiming.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 3, 2019 10:02:45 GMT -5
Really? I work in IT security . I have seen first hand the flaws in supposed test systems. I will ask you these simple questions. How can it see if it is the front of the plate or 5 -8" in front of the plate taking a picture from center field? How does it determine where the plate is from 400 feet away? How can it see the difference in the strike zone from a Player that is 5"10 or 6'5"? How would it surmise the difference form a leaf blowing across the plate from the ball, Snow from the ball? Rain from the ball? The truth is you probably would need a super computer with multiple cameras with software that can meld the images together with object identification that can be done in a spilt second. Because that is what the Ump does. Do you think you laptop or phone can do that? Do you really think that Display they show on TV is accurate? You do release the camera is 400+ feet away and the ball is traveling at 90+ miles an hour. Ok. I work in IT too. And I dont understand why your are claiming it would have to be 400 feet away. Also, you do know there are relatively compact devices called Trackman that perfectly track a golfball for hundreds of yards. It even knows it's exact velocity, spinrate, hight and distance. Not saying there wouldn't be challenges, but its certainly easier than you are claiming. The camera The 2 in this thread are suggesting that baseball use . The TV camera is center field. Can trackmen pick out a specific location in space at a needed moment? Can it resolve the golf ball with other objects moving along with it? A bat? A glove . A part of a human? A bird? Weather condition? It is extremely difficult to program for object recognition . Let alone while it is moving. You need a super computer resolve that in the time it takes an ump to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on Nov 3, 2019 10:31:54 GMT -5
Ok. I work in IT too. And I dont understand why your are claiming it would have to be 400 feet away. Also, you do know there are relatively compact devices called Trackman that perfectly track a golfball for hundreds of yards. It even knows it's exact velocity, spinrate, hight and distance. Not saying there wouldn't be challenges, but its certainly easier than you are claiming. The camera The 2 in this thread are suggesting that baseball use . The TV camera is center field. Can trackmen pick out a specific location in space at a needed moment? Can it resolve the golf ball with other objects moving along with it? A bat? A glove . A part of a human? A bird? Weather condition? It is extremely difficult to program for object recognition . Let alone while it is moving. You need a super computer resolve that in the time it takes an ump to do the same. Its not nearly as complicated as you are suggesting, because they wouldnt use a camera or the TV feed to do it. They wouldnt use object recognition in a video stream, it would be silly to do it that way. Using Radar or more probably Lidar you can easily solve most issues. First off, you can simply eliminate anything moving slowly, like everything you mention above (Radar does that already.) This would be a device near the plate, that would simply map a 3d box over the plate and track the ball within that space. Again, I'm sure there will be some issues, but its not nearly as complicated as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by NAVY2323(ret) on Nov 3, 2019 10:41:03 GMT -5
The camera The 2 in this thread are suggesting that baseball use . The TV camera is center field. Can trackmen pick out a specific location in space at a needed moment? Can it resolve the golf ball with other objects moving along with it? A bat? A glove . A part of a human? A bird? Weather condition? It is extremely difficult to program for object recognition . Let alone while it is moving. You need a super computer resolve that in the time it takes an ump to do the same. Its not nearly as complicated as you are suggesting, because they wouldnt use a camera or the TV feed to do it. They wouldnt use object recognition in a video stream, it would be silly to do it that way. Using Radar or more probably Lidar you can easily solve most issues. First off, you can simply eliminate anything moving slowly, like everything you mention above (Radar does that already.) This would be a device near the plate, that would simply map a 3d box over the plate and track the ball within that space. Again, I'm sure there will be some issues, but its not nearly as complicated as you suggest. I am not an IT guy at all. Good on both of you. I am simply saying that when the system designed is worked out it will be more accurate and without any bias as opposed to a human being. Knowing nothing about IT I still don’t see how this is debatable. If you are simply a traditionalist and don’t like the idea of computers replacing humans that is fine too. We simply live in an age where human error can be removed in many instances to prevent affecting outcomes. It’s my opinion that should be done.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 3, 2019 11:01:05 GMT -5
The camera The 2 in this thread are suggesting that baseball use . The TV camera is center field. Can trackmen pick out a specific location in space at a needed moment? Can it resolve the golf ball with other objects moving along with it? A bat? A glove . A part of a human? A bird? Weather condition? It is extremely difficult to program for object recognition . Let alone while it is moving. You need a super computer resolve that in the time it takes an ump to do the same. Its not nearly as complicated as you are suggesting, because they wouldnt use a camera or the TV feed to do it. They wouldnt use object recognition in a video stream, it would be silly to do it that way. Using Radar or more probably Lidar you can easily solve most issues. First off, you can simply eliminate anything moving slowly, like everything you mention above (Radar does that already.) This would be a device near the plate, that would simply map a 3d box over the plate and track the ball within that space. Again, I'm sure there will be some issues, but its not nearly as complicated as you suggest. I agree a camera system sucks . That is what is being used in the minors right now and what some are touting as a solution . The problem with radar and lidar is it picks out the object and tracks it. It can not pin point it in a 3 D box The strike zone that changes with each batter. you would need a hybrid system of both cameras and sensors . That has a big problem also. Let say it is set for an average MLB batter 6'1" if a batter is 5' 8" His is at a disadvantage. His strike zone is incorrect. The programmers would have to have the height of every potential player that could bat. Minors, majors, college, none US leagues in to the data base. That data profile would have to input when the batter is at the plate . Because anyone of them is a potential batter. Who is going to insert who is up at the plate ( their parameters) during every at bat in every game? How much would that cost? How is the integrity of that maintained? Umps are faster and cheaper. I am a fan and I can see the problems with that. The problems the umps cause are at least have a sense of accountability. Who do you point the finger when the call is bad?
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on Nov 3, 2019 11:07:45 GMT -5
Its not nearly as complicated as you are suggesting, because they wouldnt use a camera or the TV feed to do it. They wouldnt use object recognition in a video stream, it would be silly to do it that way. Using Radar or more probably Lidar you can easily solve most issues. First off, you can simply eliminate anything moving slowly, like everything you mention above (Radar does that already.) This would be a device near the plate, that would simply map a 3d box over the plate and track the ball within that space. Again, I'm sure there will be some issues, but its not nearly as complicated as you suggest. I am not an IT guy at all. Good on both of you. I am simply saying that when the system designed is worked out it will be more accurate and without any bias as opposed to a human being. Knowing nothing about IT I still don’t see how this is debatable. If you are simply a traditionalist and don’t like the idea of computers replacing humans that is fine too. We simply live in an age where human error can be removed in many instances to prevent affecting outcomes. It’s my opinion that should be done. Its funny because this will probably evolve just like replay. The fact is viewers are now seeing that box on the screen that is clearly showing umps making sometimes egregious mistakes. That is what will lead to some type of technology for the strike zone. I'm a bit surprised MLB allows it to be shown, unless they are trying to encourage it. And even that box is misleading as it is a 2D representation of what is a 3D space (the zone also has depth). It is also variable in height, as TEM states, where a taller player had a different size strike zone than a shorter one. In any case, I dont believe technology is the holdup.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Nov 3, 2019 11:20:22 GMT -5
I am not an IT guy at all. Good on both of you. I am simply saying that when the system designed is worked out it will be more accurate and without any bias as opposed to a human being. Knowing nothing about IT I still don’t see how this is debatable. If you are simply a traditionalist and don’t like the idea of computers replacing humans that is fine too. We simply live in an age where human error can be removed in many instances to prevent affecting outcomes. It’s my opinion that should be done. Its funny because this will probably evolve just like replay. The fact is viewers are now seeing that box on the screen that is clearly showing umps making sometimes egregious mistakes. That is what will lead to some type of technology for the strike zone. I'm a bit surprised MLB allows it to be shown, unless they are trying to encourage it. And even that box is misleading as it is a 2D representation of what is a 3D space (the zone also has depth). It is also variable in height, as TEM states, where a taller player had a different size strike zone than a shorter one. In any case, I dont believe technology is the holdup. The tech is there to do this . It would take time to become reliable and configure the problems out of it. The biggest problem is. The programing , integration of cameras and sensors along with the Hardware for the super computer as well as the reliable needed bandwidth between the stadium and where the hardware is housed. It is highly cost prohibitive compared to human umps. . The solution as some suggest, what is being done on TV . Is not. As you said it is only 2D and needs human intervention to resolve the call.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Nov 8, 2019 10:31:11 GMT -5
Did I not try telling you guys this before this past trade deadline? It makes way too much sense. Mets would be greatly improved getting Betts. Another Mookie in Queens? This would be big Sherman: Betts would be "pipe dream" CF option for Mets Nov. 7: Could Betts suit up for a New York ballclub? No, not that New York club -- the odds of the Red Sox trading their franchise star to the Yankees are as close to zero as can be. But the Mets might have as big a center-field hole as any team in baseball, and MLB Network insider Joel Sherman writes that Betts is exactly the player to fill that need. Writing for the New York Post on Thursday, Sherman outlined the Mets’ 2018 woes in center; Michael Conforto and Brandon Nimmo brought offense but were well below-average defensively, while glove stud Juan Lagares didn’t hit enough to justify an everyday spot in the lineup. New manager Carlos Beltrán has plenty of lineup-card options at the corner outfield spots in 2020, but center field remains a mystery in Queens. Sherman lists Betts as the “pipe dream” option as an elite bat who could slide over from right field and contribute excellent defense in center, and he poses a hypothetical Betts-for-Noah Syndergaard trade that far surpasses the “splash” terminology. Syndergaard’s salary is roughly one-third of Betts’ next season, and he’s under club control through ’21 as well. Sherman posits that Boston could spin Syndergaard forward in a subsequent trade to acquire younger talent and cut even more payroll. It’s a showy move that would seem to fit Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen’s early approach. But is it realistic? We’ll have to stay tuned. www.mlb.com/news/mookie-betts-rumors
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Nov 12, 2019 10:01:17 GMT -5
Since the Mets don't have a top-flight farm system, they'll have to part with big league talent for the Red Sox to even consider agreeing. Brandon Nimmo could be a strong player to bring aboard if you're Boston, as he's an above average defender and can hit towards the top of the lineup, slotting in Betts' spot immediately. Boston will be looking for something more tantalizing to make this work, of course, which is why right-hander Noah Syndergaard could become the big piece that'll transform the 2020 Red Sox. Even though the Mets don't have many big-time prospects remaining, New York will need to give up at least one, maybe two, to land Betts. Add third baseman Brett Baty and left-hander David Peterson to the deal and it'll be hard for Boston to turn them down. www.12up.com/posts/mookie-betts-trade-rumors-red-sox-mets-01dsdxs51z4d/partners/40030?fbclid=IwAR3Y7G8CVT52k-iVzujqwgDHiGbsTRx2yvSEpXapI0bJ39Fs-s0-M0td5h4Im assuming you guys still wouldnt make this deal? Betts for Thor, Nimmo, Baty and Peterson?
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Dec 4, 2019 16:48:34 GMT -5
|
|