[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex


Carl,
I got all the facts now and all the scources.

I gave you the J/R pages from the 95 edition documenting every word I quoted. (That's more than you did.) If you have an earlier edition, that's not my fault.

Terms such as “strong” and “weak” are not included in my copy of the J/R under this section. Therefore I must assume this is your exercise in editorial license.

You, sir, are deliberately twisting the facts to suit yourself. If you are indeed an umpire, that speaks volumes about your behavior on the field.

You are also the second poster to this Board to accuse me of manipulating my sources.

Let's get the sequence straight.

1. Jim Porter quotes the J/R.
2. You say you've never heard of "weak" interference.
3. I teach you what it is, point out its orgin, and quote from the J/R to help define it. Those are my only two quotes from J/R.
4. You say: "You [Carl Childress] wish to use the J/R as your final scource [sic] of authoritative opinion." You cannot support that with comments from any of my posts, either explict or implicit. Your assertion is simply a fabrication, then.
5. You say I editorialize because comments about "weak" interference don't exist at the point Jim Porter quoted. (Talk about an irrelevant charge!) You imply I deliberately tried to make it appear otherwise. That comment is just a lie.

You have engaged in that practice of innuendo and sleight of hand in other threads on other Boards. It is a hallmark of your "debating" style. You depend on the fact that most readers will not go back and check to see if your assertions are indeed borne out by the facts.

It is possible published official interpretation will eventually prove me wrong in this instance. If so, that does not bother me. I assure everyone that the 2002 BRD will carry a specific answer to this question.

What I know now is that the language of the OBR and the PBUC 4.11 makes it clear that interference should be called if the batter's backswing hinders the catcher after he has secured the ball. That is the only logical outcome of the rules language. Those are the only two sources I ever quoted to prove that point.

BTW: Warren misunderstood what you were saying. My "I'm impressed" was directed to the fact that you finally made your position on backswing interference plain, after tap dancing around through two previous posts. I didn't think you were claiming to be a PRO grad. I've read enough of your work to find it beyond belief that you attended the JEAPU. You simply said: "From what the big boys tell me, At the Evans school they are also taught--'there is no such thing as interference on the back swing'." Warren took that to mean you were a graduate, and I notice you didn't correct him in any of your subsequent posts.