|
My comments are enclosed in brackets:
[bold][quote]I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. [Not so: There are no rule citations for this elusive, actually non-existent thing call CS/FP.]
Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. [How is this comment related to CS/FP?] 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. [I have no idea what this sentence means.] 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. [Yes, it is: I just published it. Your comment was there is no difference between batter interference and runner interference if the interference "causes" a bad throw. I demonstrated there is a difference in how interference is judged, and it's because of the short time and close proximity at the plate that makes that huge difference. There's NO differece in the penalty; my comments was simply to help you learn how to distinguish between the two.]
Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. [I have no idea what this referes to.]
My comments: 1. Trust me: There is NO distinction in baseball relevant to the destination of a throw. The ball is delivered in two ways only: pitch and throw. Interference with a throw must be intentional to be penalized. A runner not in the lane -- and interfering -- is deemed to be interfering intentionally. A batter not in the box and interfering is also ruled intentional. My additional comments are enclosed in brackets:
"I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself [I said nothing of the sort.] and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. [irrelevant] The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff [irrelevant: What constitutes interference is the same everywhere. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here.] You of all people should be able to see that. [I "of all people" assure you that you need a refresher course in interference -- even if we are on the same page -- which I also don't see.
2. I haven't detected any humor anywhere in an earlier post. I put to any objective reader: Your reference to basketball had no element of humor in it. I believe, therefore, you are dissembling in this post.
|