[QUOTE]
Originally posted by umpyre007
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Quote:
What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be 4 outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "substitute" 3rd out if it is advantageous to the defense. While I can accept that for "apparent" 4th outs on appeal, where the offense has committed a base running infraction that SHOULD taint their run, I find it very hard to swallow on ACTUAL 4th outs without appeal where the offense has done everything required by the rules. There has NEVER been a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for bases to be run AFTER a legitimate 3rd out had been made, EXCEPT as the result of actions that occurred BEFORE the 3rd out such as an awarded base - at least not until now!
For me, there is just no way around OBR 5.07 without forever changing the way the game has always been played. The arrangement to have only THREE outs in a half inning dates back to the 15th rule of the original 1845 Knickerbocker rules, "15TH. Three hands out, all out." (my emphasis) Allowing any defensive team an extra (4th) out for the sole purpose of cancelling an otherwise legitimately scored run, made on a simple fielder's choice time play, is tipping the balance way too far for mine and changing a fundamental part of the game!
|
OK...let me get this straight:
1. Knickerbocker Rules: ancient AMERICAN original rules of the beloved game.
2. Jaksa/Roder: AMERICAN authors generally recognized as Authoritative Opinion.
3. PBUC: AMERICAN Minor Leagues Official Interpretations.
4. Warren Willson: Assie Internet personna who thumbs his nose at the above as often as not.
Conclusion: There IS Australian Rules Football so why don't they invent Australian Rules Baseball and all this nonsense will be a moot point down under? WW could then become the official interpreter down there. 
|
One of the downsides of the Internet is that you can say almost anything you want, current threats to do bodily harm to American high school students excepted. This means calling someone any name you want. However, to disagree with someone based in large part due to his nationality certainly does not reflect the good common sense and fair balance that makes for a good umpire. I think that if you re-read your post you will agree. It might have been that you intended your words to be humorous. If so, they did not come across as such.