Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Tom, Tom, Tom.....why is it that you seem offended by that word? There is nothing wrong with being fascinated by something. Fireworks come to mind?
|
Actually, I wasn't. It was your feigned offense that resulted in my pointing out who started this. I've never had a discussion about how many live ball innings I've had; heck I'd have no idea. It is not something I pay any attention to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Just like anything else in the game, you can "what if" it to death, you can always find a scenario that doesn't fit the rule.
|
This is not an unusual scenario, and you're the one who is advocating the slow pitch approach of killing the ball when all play has ended, not me. You said that; you didn't suggest waiting until the ball is in the circle (this time around). Maybe that is because it doesn't speed things up as much as you claim if you wait that long. I still fail to see how calling TIME and suspending play speeds anything up at all. The umpires getting back into position is hardly a big time consumer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
I was not comparing games. I was demonstrating that the fears of my suggestions affecting the flow of the game are not valid.
|
Tomayto, tomahto.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
I know Sue Enquist (UCLA) might have had a couple more notches on her belt had my methods been in place in the NCAA a few years back.  |
OK, it would protect players from stupid mistakes. Maybe we should allow mulligans also. What would work for you? Three a game?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Darrell, Darrell, Darrell......tsk, tsk, tsk!  |
It's Larry, Darrell, and Darrell. If I recall, they were from over your way.
PS to those new to this board: This is an old discussion that renews itself every so often, kinda like the profanity rule discussion. All we need is for wade to jump in again on the side of suspending play as a way to speed things up. At least I think that was wade... Wade?