|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Atl Blue
First, I am not attacking, just asking. I understand, you are the messenger, not the interpreter. Garth says your historical perspective is accurate, OK, now two of you remember this ruling.
Call it IGNORED or OVERRULED, the 2004 case play pretty much shows that Rumble was wrong, and that by today's interpretation, his ruling is no longer "in effect". The case play specifically says it is a balk "with runners on base".
Ah, step into the mind of Brad Rumble...what does the case book specifically say with NO runners on base?
And if Rumble was calling a balk AND adding a ball, now he was just making up rules.
Now you're beginning to get it.
This was beyond FEDlandia, this was BizarroWorld!
Tomato, Tomahto
__________________
GB
|