Quote:
Originally posted by rex
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Rex, you simply CANNOT use the Official Baseball Rules as evidence for why the PBUC made a decision. That's what's known as "circular reasoning". Since each and every PBUC official interpretation becomes the Official Baseball Rule on the subject, what you are saying is let's use the rules themselves to help us decide why this is a rule. Illogical and false reasoning.
|
Cobber,
That would be true if this were a NEW ruling, but it has been dated as being around at least sence 1995. Thats the date of Carl's J/R. Is not my fault he didn't know the rule was there. I'm just the messenger ya know. Don't blame me take it up with the people that didn't inform him it was there.[/B]
|
Whoa, Rex, this
hasn't been an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION "since 1995" (sic). That only happened with this recent ruling by the PBUC! What
has been around since 1995 was J/R's authoritative opinion that this non-appeal 4th out play should be allowed. That OPINION wasn't shared by any other source, official or otherwise, until now. In fact it contradicted a fundamental tenet of the game. What's more, given the PBUC's hitherto expressed lack of regard for the value of J/R as a means for reporting "official" professional interpretations, it would quite properly have been ignored as aberrant until the PBUC gave it credibility. Thus it truly IS a "NEW ruling", at least in the "official" sense. Anyway, what does all that have to do with not using the rules to prove themselves in circular reasoning?
Cheers,