[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.


[i] It never ceases to amaze me how you can keep saying you know what a player's intent was on this particular play. The rule is very specific: Don't penalize it if it is accidental. The original play made no mention of this being an accidental happenstance. I stated that it is impossible to discern whether the kid did it deliberately or not. The fact is, that you don't know. As an umpire you have to make a call and it is far easier to support your call by saying that his action directly effected the play by the catcher. You can say it was accidental but you will be in a ****storm if you do. Go ahead and say it was accidental if your league and partners are satisfied with inept umpiring. At my level, we cannot afford to suspect what the player intended - we call what happened.

My analogies were appropriate. When a player does something illegal, we don't ask ourselves whether he intended to do it or not. Pitchers balk when they don't intend to, runners slide illegally when they don't intend to, batters are called for swinging strikes when they don't intend to. We don't need to look for deliberation on many plays. I'm still not certain how you would call the original play. You just seem hell bent on saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, you're disciple in this is thomasbwhite's illegitimate son from Jacksonville. When is the last time he posted anything that was considered helpful?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NFump-
Your last post is reason enough for people to dismiss you. Please show me where in the RULE BOOK it allows a batter to do what the batter did in the original play. PBUC states that if he intended to do it you have an out. I have maintained that it is impossible to tell whether he intended to in this hypothetical play. He stood in the box and tossed the bat towards the home team dugout. He wasn't running towards frst when he chucked it backwards. No one has even offered that suggestion, but you cling to the notion that you can surmise whether the guy intended to hit the ball or not. Read the original play again and tell me where the author said that the batter aimed the bat. Go ahead, genius, have someone read it to you if the big words confuse you.

Give it up. My words come with more experience than you have years on the planet. Twisting them just makes you look more stupid than your photo on the other site.

That mobile home comment was like defending the fact that you married your sister because she is pretty and rich. You just don't get it and never will.

Umpiring games with high school age boys...did anyone else see how that was written? How are those Pony games - better than your tee ball tourney I hope? Good luck with those guys. When they learn to shave we have plenty of real umpires to correct your years of abuse.