Could Rich have been a tad nicer in his response. Sure! But he didn't call you any names. He simply asked if you were kidding. He refered to people in general with the other comments. You can take that as you will, maybe the shoe fits?
Problem is though, that the person in the original thread not only referenced a Major League game but also quoted "OBR 6.10(b) says "a hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers."" and then asked "Is there another rule that I'm missing that allows the DH to bat for anyone?"
Clearly, the post taken in context was asking about OBR. You stated an incorrect rule for OBR and made no mention of a reference to quoting a FED rule.
Seems like you were 0 for 2. Consider it a learning experience and move on. You have expect umpires to be particular when it comes to rules, eh!?!
Quote:
Originally posted by WeekendRef
As I stated I shoud have put FED RULES after my statement but I did not . I am fairly certain I know the FED rule . I don't think it was neccessary for the gentleman to come back with such a negative response for an error of omission. A simple response to correct my error would have been received with a "Thanks , my apologies" and we would have moved on .
You guys are a little too much for me...
|