Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
[/B]
|
[/B][/QUOTE]First of all, you
never mentioned you were discussing FED. All your claims of authority were from anecdotal material from major league umpires. I assure you, from long acquaintance with them, they don't know -- or care -- diddley squat about NFHS rules.
Second, there is NO rules difference between a throw to second and a throw to first. They are BOTH throws. If someone argues that the throw to first comes after a batted ball: Remember, if the catcher does not catch a third strike in flight, the batter becomes a batter-runner and may, under certain circumstances, try for first. Both are throws, don't you see? One is governed by the batter's box; the other, by the running lane.
I assure you, the reason the "rule book lawyers," i.e., the umpires who know the rules, didn't mention a difference between the two throws is simple. There ain't none!
BTW: The mention of basketball was simply to explain what time and distance meant, in a baseball sense. I should have known better. [/B][/QUOTE]
This thread has jumped all over the place so forgive me for not dotting the i's. And by the way most honorable barrister, I think we all realize they are both throws. What's your point with your example? I was comparing throws to first from behind the runner(regardless of how it happens) v/s an attempt to retire a runner at a base(ie: batter's int. on an attempted pickoff). Had a brain lapse, agreed with you, and attempted to note the difference
I assure You that there is a huge difference between the two situations, if you haven't read the post. It says "that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff. You of all people should be able to see that.
I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. Again, you should know that. Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. Since you didn't recognize, I was just having a little fun with the basketball comment earlier. If it looks like a joke, sounds like a joke, smells like a joke, it must be... Maybe the passengers on the short bus don't understand. No need to get all wound up about it.
BTW, what's up with this comment: "Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters." You must not have read this from TEE "Not to copy Carl, I would also like the names of the umpires you consulted with so I can see if they are the same ones I talked with when this issue first came up." What's wrong with addressing a reasonable question with a reasonable answer? Is that not an important part of officiating? Maybe I can answer that myself rom this comment: "We're not interested in how to explain interference to a base coach. We don't make explanations; we make calls!" Thanks partner!
Lastly, why are you busting balls? I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here but, unlike you perhaps, some here are trying to learn or at least have a discussion, don't you see?
Waiving the white flag.
