Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry
Warren,
Please forgive me! There was no intent whatsoever to belittle my friend from "Down Under".
|
No forgiveness necessary, Jerry. I wasn't offended, only genuinely puzzled. I knew that the connection was there from your point of view. I just couldn't see it is all. I didn't mean to imply that you may have been taking a shot at me. Sorry if that was how my reply came across.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry
The only connection I was hinting at, was that Jim Evans is not the only "authority" on the subject. Discussions by other reputable and recognized interpreters also exist. Scott's article, as an example. Perhaps Evans deemed the situation a "no brainer" that needed no clarification or explanation.
|
Absolutely true on all counts. I usually go to Evans first because his format makes it easier to glean the historical information quickly. That certainly doesn't mean that Evans is the only reliable or useful source on the subject.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry
Since you are familiar with both Carl and Scott at the professional level, I thought perhaps you would have read/seen that article in "Referee" magazine from several years ago . . . and perhaps forgot all about it. That's all.
|
Given the state of my memory these days, that's not an impossible proposition. I have never subscribed to "Referee" magazine, or acquired any of Carl's books other than the BRD, and I guess that would be my loss. Instead I used to subscribe to Baseball Digest especially to get Rich Marazzi's "Baseball Rules Corner". He often covered the history of rule changes in a practical way, referring to the original incidents that sparked them. Being so far away, my options were more limited back then.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry
Another point I wanted to make, but didn't; too many amateur coaches and officials read something in the rule book and immediately jump to the conclusion that it's an infraction. Knowing the history of a rule makes it much easier to properly administer any penalties that should/could be invoked. Scott's article is a good case in point. As are many of your insights and discussions on this and other boards.
Peace.
|
Thank you for the compliment, Jerry. I agree, having once been one of those conclusion-jumping amateur officials in my rookie years (and yes, I do mean that I had more than one rookie year
). I have previously admitted publicly to misinterpreting 4.03(d) a long time ago. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I was certainly no different in that regard. I'm still learning, most recently courtesy of your unearthing of Scott's article. Thanks for that.
Cheers
[Edited by Warren Willson on Aug 28th, 2003 at 05:46 PM]