View Single Post
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 30, 2001, 01:28pm
DDonnelly19 DDonnelly19 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 61
Send a message via ICQ to DDonnelly19 Send a message via AIM to DDonnelly19 Send a message via Yahoo to DDonnelly19
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair

I don't understand the inconsistency. I am not wrong for questioning it.
Again, if you don't like inconsistency take it up with the PBUC!!!! They're the ones who made the ruling that appears to be consistent with the rulebook. Maybe someone should contact Jaska or Roder to clarify their intentions on their ruling, since it seems the PBUC based their ruling of J/R. Maybe the PBUC read into their opinion too much and misunderstood the intent of the situation; the original J/R play did involve an injured BR, and I tried to persuade some that the injury was the emphasis of the ruling, not the failure to advance. If the BR is injured on a play before he reaches 1B, we're going to call him out at the end of playing action, right? Could it be that J/R was implying that the BR's out would supercede any other out made during live action, thus becoming the apparent 3rd out?

Steve, you've put a lot of effort in trying to defend your position, so why not apply the same effort on getting the PBUC to rethink their interpretation?

Dennis