Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
But Papa C, in your own Baseball Rules Differences, Section 465, you actually cite the "General instructions to umpires, following 9.05" as the OBR guideline for whether an umpire should carry his rulebook on the field or not.
Are the general instructions so NOT part of the rules that umpires should be urged to ignore them because they are long, long out of date and non canon law anyway, or should they follow the information you've given them in section 485 of the BRD, which tells them - without any editorial comment about the notes being obsolete, not canon law, or generally ignored - to carry their rulebook on the field, because that's the OBR ruling according to the General Instructions?
|
Why would anyone need an "editorial comment" when they already have the words right there?
The General Instructions to Umpires are an "OBR guideline" not "rules". How clear does this have to be? Guidelines may be accepted or rejected as appropriate,
because they are GUIDELINES and NOT RULES! Anyone who reads and comprehends English understands the difference.
Mr Hensley your approach is that of a naysayer with no better motive than to attack the probity of his enemies at every apparent opportunity. Such people are worthless in any sensible discussion because, as you have well established by your post, that approach is trivial, petty and entirely counterproductive to informed debate and knowledgable discourse.
You, sir, are behaving like a 5th columnist for the EWS idiot society. I'm sure most reasonable posters will have noticed that by now. It is time to come out of the closet and openly declare your interests and affiliations, too!
BTW, was it section 465 or 485 you were citing in your post? Surely you haven't made such a mammoth and unthinkable mistake as to get a citation reference number wrong, have you? Wouldn't that be a crushing error for one so committed to finding such errors for others? (grin)
Cheers,