[Kaliix]

At first I thought you wanted to intelligently debate this point but now I see you are incapable of actually using logic and common sense to actually discuss this issue.

To wit:
Number 1: You are right it is semantics. That is exactly what we are talking about. The definition of words and how they can change the meaning of a sentence. Semantics makes a HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE when debating the definition of rules!!!

Words must be precisely chosen and carefully applied so that their meaning is accurate and clear.

There is a difference between "OUT OF ORDER" and "IN ORDER". It is the difference between having to touch an advance base to be "OUT OF ORDER" and just missing a base to not touch the bases "IN ORDER"!!!!

It makes all the difference in the world and you write it off to semantics as somehow semantics don't matter. How foolish can you be. It is semantics. It is precisely the meaning of the words and how they are written that is in question.

Number 2: I don't give a rat's A$$ about Nick Bremigan and what he wrote in Referee magazine! What ole Nick said doesn't mean crap if he tries to interpret another rule that is in direct contrast to WHAT THE RULES READ!!!!!

I don't see anywhere in the rule book where 7.10(d) was extended to all bases. 7.10(d) doesn't even contain the additional note regarding the immediate area, 7.08(k) does. And 7.10(d) is specfic to the plate as well, just as 7.08(k) is.

Rule 7.08(k) In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision. This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

versus

7.08(d) He fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged.

Here's a suggestion: stop trying to argue 7.10(d) applies to all the bases. If someone tried to extend the "interpretation" of 7.10(d) to all the bases then they "SCREWED THE POOCH"! YOU CANNOT INTERPRET OR EXTEND ONE RULE SO THAT IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER RULE!!!

The rule as written supercedes anyones dumba$$ attempt to somehow interpret it as applying differently.

If you wanted to include the immediate area interpretation in the rule then 7.08(b) is the correct rule to "interpret".

How about trying to actually make a logical argument against the in order versus out of order problem.

And you STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME why 7.08(b) stated as follows, "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged" is somehow incorrect?

The above is the actual rule that applies to a runner not touching the bases IN ORDER because of missing a base. It states that the runner can be advancing or returning to a base and be called out on appeal before he or the missed base is tagged.

How is that rule wrong??? Did a runner miss a base? Yes! Is the ball in play? Yes! Is the runner returning to a base? Yes! Is the missed base tagged and an appeal made before the runner touches the missed base? Yes! Then all the requirements of the rule have been met as stated in the actual rule. So how is the rule wrong???

Answer the question with something other than some incorrect extenstion of another rule that directly contradicts the actual rule.

Try! Please! I'm begging you!!! PLEASE!!!

Originally posted by Gee
Sorry K, Carter tried that above. It didn't work then and it won't work now as like I told Carter, your dealing in semantics and not baseball rules.

So you don't agree with my interpretation of (b) which was reinforced by by Nick Bremigan in a Referee article, and you don't agree that (d) was extended to all bases. You still believe and I'll quote you: "Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base."

Then you say, even though we are dealing with All the bases I should use 7.08(k) instead of 7.10(b). Sorry, can't do that. 7.08(k) is specific to the plate where 7.10(d) deals with all the bases since it was extended.


No matter which one you use, they both contradict you when you say a runner is guilty of MISSING the plate the moment he fails to touch it in passing. Under both rules the runner has to leave the immediate area of the plate before he is guilty of MISSING it and appealable. Just like (b) where the runner is not guilty of MISSING his previous base and appealable until he touches his advance base. Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that nor do you accept the extension of 7.10(d) Pick a winner. G.
















First off, please get your terms straight. The rule refers to touching the bases "IN ORDER". It mentions nothing of touching the bases "OUT OF ORDER". While this seems like a small point, it means a world of difference and it is what makes your argument fail.

If the BR touches 1st then misses second and goes halfway to third, he has not yet touched the bases "OUT OF ORDER" because he hasn't yet touched 3rd. Agreed.

However, the rule does not specify that the bases cannot be touched "OUT OF ORDER" is specifies that the bases must be touched "IN ORDER".

If the same BR touches 1st and then MISSES 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases "IN ORDER" specifically because he has missed a 2nd base.

A runner can fail to touch the bases "IN ORDER" by missing, in our example, 2nd base on his way to third.

Out of order can't really happen until an advance base is touched, I agree with that.

Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base. If a runner misses 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases in order, due to the missed base, and can be called out on appeal, according to rule 7.10(b) which could read "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged."

See the difference between "out of order" and "in order"?

And 7.08 (k) is the rule you probably should be quoting as dealing with the immediate area argument after missing home.

[/B][/QUOTE]