Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
...given the Evans response that should settle this interesting and lively debate, one would hope the authors of those statements would have the integrity to at least post a final note to the thread acknowledging their newfound enlightenment.
|
Thought I'd already done that; but in case I was not clear/ contrite enough:
WOW! That's news to me; Jim Evans certainly is "recognised or General Authority": and inasmuch as I said earlier that I would accept such, I now formally confess error.
I don't understand it, but I can easily accept it.
And if my poor attempts at humor and a light tone with my posts was read by you [Dave] as condescending [or arrogant, although I tend to see that as less of a sin, myself]; well, that's not what I intended at all. [/B]
|
By Kalix's count, there were 13 different participants arguing the "no balk" side. At this point, you and Garth are the only two to have acknowledged the Evans ruling.
It's a pity you don't understand Evans' rationale. Kalix and I have (independently of each other) spent quite a bit of time explaining and defending that rationale, in terms that I thought were pretty understandable.
I don't remember anything from you I would consider arrogant. I did consider your suggestion that I actually read the rule I was citing to be condescending and unnecessary. I generally don't enter a debate on a baseball rule unless I've read it, as well as everything else in the supporting authoritative literature I own related to it, and have a reasonable level of confidence that I know what I'm talking about.
I give you and Garth credit for stepping up and acknowledging that a legitimate authority took a position contrary to yours on the play in question. A wise man once told me there is no dishonor in embracing three simple little words, when the occasion calls for it - "I stand corrected."