[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:
I'm sorry if you took this wrong Carl. I am the sort that needs to ask his own questions to clarify things.
So, then, if I have sorted things out correctly:
1. FED as a national organization has not ruled specifically on the play in question.
2. The interpretation of the FED rule as it applies to this play in the BRD is yours.
3. Some state FED interpreters disagree with that interpretation.
Is this a fair representation of where we stand, or have I missed something?
|
No more than usual. (grin)
Example: Able should bat but Baker bats and singles. Before a pitch, the defense appeals that Baker was an improper batter.
NOW, if I include that in the BRD, with a ruling, am I making an interpretation?
No: I'm illustrating what the language means. Well, at least, that's what I think I'm doing.
Likewise, my Play 26-22 (Hey, go next door and look over your friend's shoulder - another but smaller grin), which appeared eight straight years in the BRD without a whimper of opposition, is NOT an interpretation.
It's not what I think ought to be the ruling.
It's not what I think a FED interpreter might do.
We all know that English may not be the native tounge of those who toil in the FED vineyard.
My play (Did you get back yet?) simply shows what "lodged" means. "Stuck." Maybe I'll say "stuck."
American Heritage says: "Lodge: To be or become embedded." I'd say a ball that remains in a glove even after it's thrown some distance across a baseball diamond is "embedded," uh, I mean "stuck."
|
Okay, you are against "yes and no" answers. So let me see if I have it correct this time.
1. You make no interpretations at all, rather you adjudge what language means. Thus when someone says "...that according to the interp in BRD..." they are incorrect in their reference and assumption.
2. The play in the BRD (14-20) was created by you and not FED and thus is indicative of your opinon of how the language should be illustrated and is not an interpretation put forth or approved by you or FED.
So, it would seem to follow that since the BRD play does not contain an interpretation, but rather a discussion of language, an actual interpretation made by recognized state Fed interpretors should be the one followed within their state. Would you agree?