Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, by reviewing the Fed rules provided you will find:
1) the runner is required to advance
2) if he doesn't, the umpire without defensive appeal will declare him out at the end of playing action
3) the defense can accept the most advantageous final out.
|
Even though I am unashamedly NOT a FED rules "expert", I think you'll find that the requirement to advance only applies when forced. It is a FALLACY (look that up if you have to) to suggest that the batter-runner is "forced" to advance to 1st base. The BR is NOT required to vacate a base that he has never held, and so can NEVER be "forced" in that sense. Furthermore, NO runner is required to advance AFTER the 3rd out has finally been made in the half inning either! That's just baseball basics. Don't take my word for it (of course I know you won't), look it up! Once the 3rd out has been finally made no bases may be acquired and no runs scored.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Steve, what you are missing here is that the 4th out allowed by PBUC is a non-appeal 4th out. The batter-runner is NOT out for "missing" 1st base. He is out instead under OBR 6.05(j) because the PBUC says the defense can correct their error in not playing on the BR for the 3rd out! FED doesn't allow appeals of "missed" bases that runners haven't yet reached, any more than does OBR.
|
Warren, PBUC is not saying the defense can correct their error (as you may like to view it). The PBUC is standing by the tradition that no runs can score on a play where the final out is a force out or where BR fails to reach 1st base (6.05j). They are requiring the offense to advance at least to the next base if forced to do so. That has always been part of the game to the best of my knowledge.[/B]
|
So now YOU are in sync with the thought processes of the PBUC, in this case the entire Minor League staff in conference in Texas? Horse feathers! Under the rules there are ONLY 3 outs in any half inning. OBR 4.09 only applied to those 3 outs, UNTIL the recent PBUC decision which now allows an unprecedented
4 outs! And don't feed me any of your drivel about OBR 7.10 and the "apparent" 4th out. That is only an "
apparent" 4th, but is actually a chronological
3rd, out. I know that concept will be beyond you, too!
NO RUNNER HAS
EVER BEEN REQUIRED TO RUN BASES ONCE THE 3RD OUT OF THE HALF INNING HAS FINALLY BEEN MADE - UNTIL NOW!
Quote:
I don't know where or when you became the Fed expert as I recall past posts where you excused yourself regarding Fed questions. It seemed no one in Oz played by Fed rules. Although not official, my discussions included a Fed interpreter who agreed rather than disagreed with my logic. I will take his opinion over yours.
|
I have NEVER claimed expert status in FED rules. To suggest otherwise, as you have here, is pure prevarication. The only statements I have made concerning FED rules have simply reiterated statements by others who truly ARE FED experts. I'll match your FED interpreter with MY FED interpreter and raise you a FED casebook and a BRD author!
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
If FED suddenly decides to allow 5 strikes and 7 balls, providing the batter is the first in the lineup on a Shrove Tuesday, does this mean we should also do so in OBR? You are once again poking a lance at Carl, this time about borrowing rulings from other codes. I wholeheartedly agree with Carl that "borrowing rulings" from other codes is a legitimate approach IF you are using those rulings in order to make an OBR 9.01(c) on-field determination that you fear might later be protested. Some authoritative support for your on-field decision is better than NONE at all, right? However, I'm sure even YOU would agree that you should also use your OWN common sense and NOT "borrow rulings" that neither you nor anyone else in their right mind, much less a protest committee, can easily follow! That's the case here, IMHO.
|
Warren, you were the one who once pointed out the flaw in using ridiculous examples. The obvious flaw in your example is, in fact, that the Fed specifically states how many balls and strikes are required in their game. Again, as typical, you manage to muddy the page with your rhetorical nonesense.
Fact is, the Fed has not specifically ruled on this issue. Therefore, using logic previously explained by Carl, by analogy one should attempt to use the ruling from the other set of rules if, indeed, the other set of rules has specifically addressed the issue. That IS the case here. The logic should not be dismissed merely because you or someone else does not like the outcome of the decision. Perhaps we can use the logic only with your approval. Are you allowed to use it only when proving your point, and we are only allowed to accept it then?? I suspect the ruling of the PBUC is not popular amongst the majority of umpires. That may be where the problem originates.[/B]
|
Absolute drivel and nonsense that has totally missed the point being made, and so is not worth commenting upon. I won't waste my time on it, beyond that brief observation.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Now, please, stop jousting at Carl with off-topic issues every time he makes a post in this forum. It is already obvious to all and sundry that you disagree with most everything Carl says, and that you consider him to be a hypocrite who changes his position from post to post to suit his own ends. As WRONG as you most certainly are about that, Steve, you'll NEVER convince everyone else using this forum to go along with your faulty premise. Give it up, please!
|
Warren, I am not jousting with Carl. You will find many posts by both of us here and elsewhere that do not address each other. However, I for one will not accept all that is said as Gospel---even if it means just to question why. That is my choice. You and others may do as you desire. That is your choice.[/B]
|
Outright LIE, Steve. You devoted an entire paragraph of your last post to the suggestion that Carl is duplicitious in his use of the very principle under discussion. Personally, neither of us cares WHAT you "accept .. as Gospel" or otherwise. My desire is to go back to ignoring your outright stupidity with its pretentions to "logic".
Here is the 1 word in 1000 I know you will appreciate from me..
Cheers,