|
Originally posted by mcrowder
The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.
If it matters...
Baseball FED since 1992.
If you were doing FED games since 1992 then how can you say "And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's one thing to not enforce a rule and one thing to say You never saw or heard of it.
As I and Bob Jenkins pointed out, it's right in the FED case Book. If you have a copy of an old FED case book before the rule was changed, read the Case play on the situation being discussed.
BTW did you hear about accidental appeals in FED or you never heard or saw those either.
Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|