[QUOTE]
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]Carl, I apologize for suggesting that you supported Hopkins recent ruling. Your conclusion that the OBR governing this play is outdated does, in no way, serve as a tell to your feelings.
Carl's comment: I don't recall ever saying the OBR rule governing this play is outdated. I don't
know of any official ruling from MLB or PBUC dealing with a ball "lodged" in a glove (other than the catcher's). In the BRD I simply extrapolated a ruling from two or three instances where the pitcher throw glove/ball to first base and the umpire called "Out!" If you can get me the source where I can read it, I'll certainly include it in the 2005 BRD. I'm working on that right now.[QUOTE]
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]
I never said that you made the ruling, but I took issue with the fact that you took pride in "ownership" of the interp.
Carl's comment: I took pride in the
thread that lead to an official ruling. I began with words to this effect: "Think of it: A play from the BRD and posts in the Forum...." I'm certainly glad a BRD play (present in every edition since 1994) was the genesis of this discussion.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]I'm not going to spend the time looking for it, but you made a comment about having a smirk on your face when you learned of it.
Carl's comment: Here's what I actually wrote: "For now, suffice it to say that the ruling in the BRD is correct. But it is now not an illustration of a ruling but a report of one. The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied."
Carl's comment continued: Your changing the word from "satisfied" to "smirk" is a perfect example of why evidence from eyewitnesses is not as compelling as circumstantial evidence. I specifically said I was
not smug, merely happy that my reading of the FED committee's language matched what the current rules interpreter thought.
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Finally, you stated that a national interpreter is infallible in his rulings. Is that why they update and change them annually?
|
Carl's comment: Alas, I despair. Here's what I said: "An official interpreter
cannot be wrong." When he speaks, it's like the pope
ex cathedra. It is the law. He may change his mind, the committee may rewrite the rule, he may be replaced by a new interpreter. You may not like his ruling. Who cares? It's the law. As I said a rules interpreter is,
a priori, always right. That does not match your definition of "infallible" in light of the following sentence: "Is that why they update and change them annually?" BTW: I don't find that statement to be accurate either. "Update and change them annually"? There are about 1000 case play with the FED name to them. They average perhaps five revisions a year.
Here's a play I proposed to Mike Fitzpatrick back in November 2001: 2 outs, with a 10-man lineup: Abel should bat but the pitcher Jackson reports as a pinch hitter. The umpire does not discover the error. After Jackson walks, the defense appeals. Ruling:
Hey, you tell me what the ruling is. It ain't in the OBR, that's for sure.
Mike said: If the pitcher bats for anyone other than the DH: When appealed properly the pitcher in an improper batter. The proper batter is out and removed from the game. The pitcher will continue to bat in the spot of the replaced player, and the new defensive player hits in the DH spot. The role of the DH is terminated whenever the infraction is discovered. (phone call to me, 11/8/01)
So the ruling in the play above is: Able is out and removed from the game. Baker will lead off the next half inning. The role of the DH is terminated, and the player replacing Able will hit in the DH spot.
Hey, it's a ruling, isn't it?
A so-called prolific "expert" on rec.sport.officiating said: "Listen, that's wrong!"
I'm sure they heard my laugh in Mexico. It's only 18 miles to the river.
As for engaging in a discussion about an interpretation of the Hopkins interpretation, I have no interest in that.
I'm not a rules interpreter, except for high school/college in my association and USSSA 8u to 19u at the Rio Grande Valley Sports Academy.
Occasionally, the BRD offers an opinion on some Point Not Covered.
This play is not one of them.
I'm sure you'd agree there are a surprising number of inaccuracies in your post.
[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 15th, 2004 at 08:53 PM]