[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Reed
Read the passage just following the part of my previous message that you quote. It explains why I think 7.08(e) would not be applicable to a FPAF.

Nice try!
Problem w/ your explanation is that it is a variation [more intelligent, perhaps, but definitely out of the same stable] on "IT JUST IS" ["is NOT", in this case]. Can you cite me to any rule, OFF.INTERP., A/O, or Higher/ General Authority which supports the notion that "retreats", as and when used in 7.08(e), doesn't include BR's inexplicable retrograde movement on the base path after touching 1st? I didn't think so. That makes it your opinion: everyone has 'em, just like ...(well, you know..); however, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that you have made a logical, reasoned argument that X is true, since, in your opinion, Y is true. What is your authority [as us legals like to say] for your opinion or assertion?

You've got me baffled here; 7.12 isn't related to this discussion in any way.

OK, you got me here: I must have been tired, or at least sloppy. How about 4.09(a)(2)? No runs score w/ 3d out on "ANY runner being forced out"[My emphasis]. Please notice also (a)(1): No runs ...3d out "by the BR before he touches 1st base". Now, I'll let you get away with claiming that 6.05 repeating parts of 7.08 [actually, it is chronologically vice versa, which I think is significant] may be merely redundant; but even the Rule Book guys wouldn't bother to separately enumerate the PAF in the SAME PARAGRAPH as a force play, if the PAF was a "Force Play".

I see you've claimed victory. There is a rule (I just made it up) that you can't claim victory when your trumping argument was anticipated and rebutted in a previous post!

Actually, you did not have to make up the rule, nor invoke 9.01(c) to make the ruling.
F###wad, I win! is derived from the J. William Fullbright Protocol for Terminating Intractable Outdoor Debates Involving Small Arms and Heavy Ordinance ["Declare victory, and go home."]. As such, it may be invoked only where there are no remaining issues which can be authoritatively resolved, and the discussion have been reduced to the level of "Is! Isn't!! My cannon is bigger!! ..." [you get the picture].

So, like I said, cite me an authority.

Otherwise, I am allowed to claim victory [if you truly were arguing FPAF, and not merely trying to advance an arguably logical basis for the belief], based on your agreement that "BR must be tagged/ runs score" in the sitch we are discussing; which cannot be true if FPAF is true.

Actually, as you may recall, my original purpose was to show that one need not be idiotic or illogical to make an argument for FPAF. We've been able to discuss FPAF through several exchanges without rancor. I infer that you will concede that limited original purpose.

I concede that we have exchanged views without rancor: this is easy when neither party takes every trifling comment as a personal affront and approaches the debate with an open [and, dare I say, agile] mind, reinforced by a sense of humor more robust than their sense of self-importance. However, it is still possible for reasonably intelligent logical folk to make the same arguments, even illogical arguments, as hardhead idiots.

I continue to stand by my statement that I have yet to encounter a logical argument for PAF=F, although I certainly concede to you a reasonable defense of the closest thing to a logical argument that there is [the "reverse force DP" example] for the FPAF proposition. Under our agreed-upon rules of engagement, that means I am not allowed to call you names: I trust you will agree that I have obeyed that rule.

--Carter

[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 13th, 2004 at 05:40 AM]