[MPC]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
My comments are enclosed in brackets:
[bold]

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.]
------------
I never said it was a rule. It is a tool. Do I really need to explain that?
--------------
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.
--------------
Are you saying if you stumble upon a situation in a game that is not clearly or specifically covered by the rules you'll say "Sorry, no published interpretation on that on so lets do over?"
--------------

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.]
----------------
Sorry, didn't realize you were an authority on the rules committee. So you don't agree that a huge difference is that one is actually interfering with the ball "in flight" and the other can be interference with the attempt prior to the release? I think that is a key difference between the two.
----------------
Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. [I have no idea what this referes to.]
----------------
I mention a tool to use for baseball and you mention a tool for baseball. Yet you want citations for what I mention. BTW, if you read the OBR Annotated by JE you will probably find it published there.
----------------
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.
-------------------------
You didn't say there is a difference between the throw being 5' over the head in the runners lane situation v/s the batters interence situation where the ball is 5' over the head??? Better check yourself there professor.

Again, the act of being outside of the batters box and interfering with the "act of throwing" on a pickoff is somewhat different than interfering with a ball "in flight" on the running lane play to first. I think we've all agreed that there has to be a quality throw on the play at first in which the BR interferes with while the ball is in flight. The other does not have to be a quality throw because the act of the interference could be what caused the ball to go into centerfield. Is that not clear? Are we not on the same page there?

Yes, I'd say a lot of people need a refresher on interference as well as instructing. Hopefully the instructor will be as good of a listener as he is a talker. That may help everyone in attendence to clearly understand where he is coming from.
--------------------------

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.

--------------------------
Yea, Okay. What's the saying about opinions?