Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NFump
Originally Posted by BigUmp56
There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.
Tim.
Does this help? His was a sarcastic example, yours was just......wrong.
--------------------------
Next, the intentionally thrown bat rule you quoted has no similarity to the original sitch, as there isn't an intentionally thrown anything in it.
No, I twisted nothing. I quoted you. Hopefully, you can see that.
|
-------------
No, it doesn't help. What was wrong with my example? Are you suggesting that a rule allows ONE to intentionally discard a bat in a careless manner and not be ejected. I definitely see a SIMILARITY. It may not be congruent to your thinking, but there is definitely a SIMILARITY, like it or not.
You can't be sure there isn't anything twisted about your statement. Something aout the similarity in the two rules strikes a familiar chord. I see nothing about a HOME RUN ball. Perhaps your just holding me UP to a HIGHER standard. Would you like me to put that in BOLD letters?
That is the beauty of it, rule 3-3-1 and 6.05.h/7-3-6 appear to conflict. Different penalties exist for ONE judgement call. According to the rule book, it is left up to the UMPIRE to enforce. I think the issue must be clarified to avoid favoritism among the UMP/RATS who actually know the rules and the Protest Committee members. It would be possible for the rule committee to clarify a batter's action in chapter 6 (OBR) or chapter 7 (fed). It looks rather, hmmm, stuck in chapter 3. I support the bouys who made the call at that ballpark and I have more faith in the TD than some on this board.