[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by teacherspit
"What if I don't screw up. Tell the player to get the ball back to the pitcher and he refuses?

"You make it out like that, refusal to obey instructions, never happens so there need not be a rule for getting the game back in progress.
I have a grip.

NO, I made it out that THIS particular "refusal" will never happen, thus your "need" to eject somebody to "get the game back in progress" will never happen.

"You know a person can "what if" everything that is written here. And start a bunch of crap.
People have oppinions, just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to bash them or try to make them out to be a fool.
"Like I have posted before here.
Some of those here that choose to nickpick at everything posted here. And then have some Smarta$$ remark to say about it.

I might think more of this point, were it not for the fact that it was YOU, t-s-, who came up with the "what if" post. And it is not "nitpicking" to inquire exactly what rule you are claiming supports your opinion. YOU posted "Ejection is the rule" in this situation. I called you out on WHAT RULE IS THAT? I am still waiting for an answer.

"A man asked a simple question. Or described a situation. Several persons gave their oppinion. But as usual their opinions required a thrashing by words from the same small group of players here who try to control every aspect of this site.

Yes, he did: go back and read it. In the actual play, the umpires realized that there could not be a dead-ball balk in this situation: the question asked was "Did we do the right thing?"

The question was answered, with reasons, by several upper-level umpires: "Yes, you did the right thing". Then a coluple of knuckleheads [incl. you] chimed in to argue that there should be a balk in this situation. No "thrashing" took place until the knuckleheads persisted in arguing their view, despite being unable to cite any actual rule, and despite having the correct rule(s) cited to them chapter and verse.
Then you opened the "ejection" line of argument, and again, several folks pointed out that you were off base; at which point you offered your "What if they don't do what I tell them?" justification. That was just silly, and I don't feel at all meanspirited for pointing that out.

"Since I have been reading and posting here. I have learned that I have made mistakes in my interpretation of the rules.
I learned that a pitcher does not have to be off the rubber to make an appeal.
"I cannot charge a coach a trip when he yells from the dugout for his pitcher to back off the rubber so he can converse with him.
"I also have learned that no matter what I write that someone here will find a way to turn it around to fit their need to confront or make fun of me.

t-s-, you have been "confronted" a couple of times for arguing those (and similar) incorrect positions, and each time, you have been asked to cite the "rule" you claim supports your decision. Except for incorrect reliance on 9.01(c), you usually fail to respond, except by making even wilder, unsupported and unsupportable "rulings" [going from supporting a dead-ball "balk" to ejecting someone for trying the HBT on a dead ball, for example].

This makes it hard to take you seriously.

"That's cool. Because I am a fool for even responding to those who choose to point out my umpiring deficiencies in a most unprofessional mater."

Not all opinions are of equal value. When you persist in arguing against the "black letter law" of the rule book and the authoritative opinion of more knowledgeable people, your "contribution" is devalued by your acts. In every case that I have been involved in, your "deficiencies" were identified and correction offered in a reasonably "professional" manner. You refused to accept correction, and thereby opened yourself to less gentle treatment.

You remind me of a fellow in my Assn [hell, for all I know, you could be him]-

Fellow calls a balk; gets told by his very senior partner [NOT me] that it is not a balk - argues, refuses to "accept correction". After game, is shown in black and white IN THE RULE BOOK that what he called IS NOT A BALK. His response? [I SWEAR I am not making this up]: "The book is wrong!"

It is hard not to ridicule folks like that.