[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
As the result of a long back and forth discussion, Warren Willson was arguing that had you not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable. I was pointing out the absurdity of this
arguement and to demonstrate the absurdity, I posed a hypothetical situation that made the umpires out to be idiots.

---[snip]---

Warren Willson had originally argued that, with rare excptions (checked swing, etc.) to change a call could result in a protestable situation. When faced with your crews play, he argued that to not change the call would be
protestable. Actually he argued that no call was changed, since the PU technically made "no call". As I said, it was linguistic gymnastics.

Mr Osborne, you NEVER cease to amaze me with the degree of your prevarication and obfuscation. In this case you have MISREPRESENTED me and my position most rudely, since I am NOT a member of the forum in which you posted these assertions, and so am unable to refute them. You OWE me an apology for your misrepresentations there, and you owe that it be offered in a manner that ENSURES that Mr Bible and the members of that list clearly see that apology!

At no stage did I argue "had (they) not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable." To continue to claim otherwise is to once again infer in a public forum that I am a liar. I AM NOT. What I DID say was that the moment U2 declared he had seen the batter hit by the pitch, then we had a "protest situation". Indeed we do have a "protest situation". If the result of U2's admission is not at least discussed by the crew under OBR 9.04(c), and a final decision made by the UIC, that would be protestable. If the crew refused to discuss what U2 saw, the manager would be entitled to protest that the rules had been misapplied. THAT was the basis for my contention, and NOT as you wrongly claimed that a failure to send the batter to first would be protestable. You made a wrong assumption about my statement that we had a "protest situation". Not only were you WRONG in your assumption but you have also compounded that error by shamefully misrepresenting my position on the matter in a forum where you KNEW I had no redress!

Not satisfied with one misrepresentation there, you then proceeded to make a second! At no stage did I argue "that no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'". This is just pure fantasy! In fact I explained specifically that PU's "no call" WAS a judgement decision. I also explained that U2's decision that the batter was hit was also a judgement decision even though not verbalised at the time. I said that meant we had TWO decisions by different umpires on the same play, and so the matter was properly handled under OBR 9.04(c). Can you explain how I could possibly argue that position IF I had first claimed that "no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'"? Your assertion is absolute nonsense, and misleading in the extreme.

There can be no doubt, from this post, that you are a PREVARICATOR. If your misrepresentation of my position was also deliberate, then I suggest that further makes you a LIAR. You owe me an apology, Peter, and it had best be unequivocal. Your actions in this matter as they relate to me are disgraceful! If you have ANY vestigal sense of honour, or any remnant of a desire that your apparent dishonesty be expunged, then you MUST redress this situation and APOLOGISE, IMMEDIATELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY.