..... 1934 .....
the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."
Perhaps "Father Time" is to blame? Since, in 2001 it seems lawyers greatly out number gentleman.....
Quote:
Originally posted by DJWickham
In a post about his poor Red Socks, Jim Porter wrote:
Quote:
|
I wish now this had gone to protest. It might've set a precedent, and that other changed call thread would never have happened.
|
This raises a question I've had for some time. Are protest rulings any precedent? I haven't found any place in which the protest rulings are collected, and for recent years, the MLB protest rulings are simply press releases that do not explain the reasoning.
Should we, for example, take note that the 1934 protest of Bill Klem's judgment non-call of an IF was sustained (on the otherwise erroneous ground that a fly ball that drops onto the infield is an infield fly.) The ruling reportedly caused Klem to utter what may be the most important rule interpretation of all: the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."
|