Quote:
Originally posted by PWL
I never corrected anybody. I read the part about Richie Phillips, and I naturally assumed they were speaking of 1999. Had I known Richie Phillips had been union chief in 1979 and 1984, I wouldn't have thought any different of it. Good to know if I ever get in a tough game of Trivial Pursuit.
Everybody has their own ideas about this strike/lockout or whatever it will be. Personally, if I was a member of the AMLU I wouldn't concern myself of what people think and say on these forums. Believe me, they won't have a say in what goes in these labor negotiations. They don't pay dues or vote. You can't account for everyone and everything.
Now, I understand their plight and the cause behind it. I support anyones' right to better themself, as long as they do it the right way.
BTW-Your supposed to be a reader, too. I didn't quote you. That's the problem with this forum. You have to think alike to have "credibility". I been out there with guys that have done it 20 or 30 years, and their judgement is something to behold sometimes. I'll earn my credibility on the diamond.
Just so you know. I don't agree with your interpertation that it isn't interference if a coach grabs a player and shoves him back to base he misses on a home run. Even if it is a dead ball, it deprives the defense of a chance to appeal.
|
There you go again, not reading carefully. I don't make interpretations. I never have.
All I do is explain what the language means. The FED (and you, apparently) is not worried that the book does not condone calling coach's interference during a dead ball.
That's not an interpretation; that's a fact.
The FED says: We mean that the coach can aid a runner during a dead ball only when it doesn't help the runner to leave or return to a base.
Now
that is an interpretation, and I have no quarrel with the FED making it.
But I won't let them get away with saying the "rule" prohibits it.