|
Garth, that's why I presented the past examples of the Carl's statements, not illustrations, of the previously mentioned pitching movements. To say as he does that is legal for an NCAA pitcher to feint to a base from the rubber without first having to step to that base is, indeed, an interpretation----not an illustration. No differently than it was Carl's interpretation when he stated, not illustrated, that arm movement was required by Fed for a legal feint to be accomplished (since the Fed had never stated that).
Play whatever type rhetorical masquerade he may try, these are all merely examples of author interpretation that has permeated The BRD, and are similar to some past issues where he has later needed to correct The BRD. No problem...people make mistakes.
What amazes me most is that I pointed out to Carl that his NCAA interpretation is in direct conflict with the written rule, but for years he failed to even address the issue to at least try to get a ruling to support his interpretation. That's simply a case of his choosing to leave that error in his book merely because he doesn't like the person who pointed out his error. I'd strongly suspect had Bob Jenkins pointed out that error to him he'd have checked it out and corrected it immediately. (I'll bet a dollar to a donut that Bob would balk an NCAA pitcher who, from the rubber, makes an arm pump to a base without first stepping there). Apparently Carl's dislike of me is greater than his desire to maintain accuracy within The BRD. Hopefully I'm wrong, and he made that correction in his last rewrite of his book.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|