Fri Sep 03, 2004, 05:29pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
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?
|
No. Yes. Not necessarily.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I got caught up in the moment.
|
Okay. Now we're getting somewhere....2 out of three ain't bad.
But to number one:
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.
Which then lead to this conclusion by me:
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.
To which you replied:
No
This last reply seems to be inconsistent with your earlier description. Maybe it's because I have concentrated only on this one non intrepetation description of language.
Are you saying that the BRD does indeed include actual intrepretations in addition to the non interpretation descriptions of language? And if that is the case, how are the two differentiated. (I'm sorry, but my copies of the BRD only go to 2001, perhaps this is all handled differently in the newer editions.)
__________________
GB
|