View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 22, 2002, 02:28am
Bfair Bfair is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
Originally posted by Carl Childress

FED says: "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitcher or a throw to a base...."

I care not a whit the outcome of any "official interpretation" from the NFHS. I am not arguing whether arm motion is required to avoid deception; I never have. I only argue that the FED language does not support the concept of a feint without arm motion.

Simply put:

One cannot THROW with one's foot. Agreed?

Therefore, one cannot SIMULATE A THROW with one's foot.

Change the language.
Lah me, Childress. The problem is not a need to change the language, but rather YOUR NEED to read and understand the language that is already there (which you have shown).

We all know you do not throw with your foot, yet a step with a foot can be "the start of a pitch or throw to a base." In fact, the step of the foot to the plate is a factor in considering the time of the pitch, correct? And although that same logic was discussed in the initial thread, you failed to accept it.

While you attempt to hide your error in your twisting of words, I recommend for all to review the original thread which initiated this topic and note not only the baseball content discussed, but the personal attack and inuendo initiated by Childress with those who disagreed with him.

Now that your inaccuracy in reading the words printed in the rules has been highlighted, you may wish to go back and re-read the rule related to the award of bases in thread regarding the Fed 2002 Casebook. You will see that the Fed states the runner "who is returning"............

As it is written, it makes the award dependent upon the runner's actions. If you live by your eTeamz post, you should not add your own intent by changing those words to "a runner who is required to return"...........

Instead, why not use your contacts to ask the Fed what they mean, instead of posting to the contrary without any other support. You may be opening yourself up to yet even another missed interpretation. As for myself, I am merely abiding by what the existing words state. I feel that appropriate until such time as the Fed changes their wording or elects to rule differently through caseplay or ruling.

Just my opinion,

Reply With Quote