[GarthB]

Carl:

I am constantly amazed at how you can, over the distance of time, change which sides of an issue you choose to argue, and your ability to feel superior on both sides.

I really don't care if you have tried to narrow your focus on anything. Your focus was never what I was concerned with when I was posting. If you choose to interrupt a thread you should keep tabs on what the parties are saying, that is, if you wish your interruption to be considered particpation. Despite being an empoyee of Officiating.com, you don't set the rules to posting.

Now then, since you insist on selling your version of events let's correct a few things.

1. I have never proclaimed myself a "big dog." I am just a competent umpire fomr the sticks of Spokane who has had the good fortune over time to get some good assignments and enjoy my experiences in baseball. I'll leave the self promotion of "big dog" to others.

2. Here is how my participation in this thread began: Someone by the name of woolnojg wrote:

"When diengaged (sic) from the rubber, pitcher is a fielder."

to which I replied:

"My point: You have to be careful about making a universal statement that a pitcher is a fielder when he is off the rubber. Sometimes he is treated LIKE a fielder...for base awards, for example. There are other rules under section 8.05 that allow him to behave similarly to a fielder if he properly disengages, but still, by rule, he is referred to as a pitcher."

Now then, see anything there about 8.01 (e)? I don't, and I didn't write my response thinking that we were so narrowly focused. I was responding to "when disengaged..." a very broad statement and made a very broad reply.


Then "teacherspit" (sic?) jumped in with:

"GB, When the pitcher steps off the back of the rubber. He is not under the penalty of balking. Unless he throws the ball to a fielder. Then without the ball strides the rubber or toes the rubber. Then he has balked."

Again, a broad statement, not invoking 8.01 (e) and not interpreted that narrowly by me, or anyone else, I believe until you arrived.

My response that post was again, to point out that this was not universally true and gave examples of a pitcher balking while disengaged from the rubber.

Then "teacherspit" apparently not keeping up with who said what started asking me questions based on posts of others, Rich's, primarily, I believe; and confused, I began to take my leave.

Then, you, chossing to create a narrow focus out of what had been a general statement decided to find that hatchet you buried someplace and once again twisted things to make them appear other that what was intended by attempting to force everyone to accept your narrow focus of a discussion that did not involve you. I, stubborn as ever, refused to accept your intervention, as I continue to do.

As Jim Evans points out, 8.01 (e) was not codified until 1950 and was done so to specifically provide a two base penalty for a wild throw out of play by "the pitcher when he was 'off the rubber.'”

I have no problem with anything I have posted. I have not denied the exact wording of 8.01 (e). This discussion, as a reading of it's evolution indicates, was not focused just on 8.01 (e) until you chimed in and by error, I responded. The thread of my particiation has always been that there are times when a pitcher may be disengaged from the rubber and the rules still refer to him as the pitcher.

In another thread at this site I see you talking about a pitcher taking signs off the rubber. There is one such instance. The rule doesn't refer to him as the fielder formerly known as the pitcher taking signs off the rubber, now does it?

I accept your superior wordsmithing and ability to morph from a common sense umpire to a black and white umpire and back again when it suits your arguments. I will not, and I accept the fact that I cannot compete with you in this kind of debate.

In the future, I will attempt to be much more careful with what I post and, although I did include clarifiers in this thread, I will attempt to utilize much clearer clarifiers to avoid a battle of nits.

Have a good day, and of course, the last word.

P.S. You shouldn't make assumptions about what I wish and didn't wish I have said.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 25th, 2004 at 02:51 PM]