Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
RIF
|
Yes, you should try it sometime. Like read what I wrote and don't add any connotation to it, or say that I don't know how to rule on something. I haven't yet argued your interpretations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
I]OBR 7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when --
(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.[/I]
|
This is not the part of the rule I was quoting. Try quoting the part of the rule I was referring to. If it isn't part of the rule, then why didn't they revise it when they printed the new MLB rules, and changed the rule from its former designation as 7.09m, to its current 7.09k? This is the part I am talking about, and no other part. RIF GARTH! It still says:
"If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
As noted, the rule, inconsistently, refers to fielder and infielder. This is one of the 230 plus error that have been identified in the rule book.
|
Yeah, I going to tell a coach that the rule book he's shoving in my face after I protect the left fielder making a play on the ball that kicked off the runner's leg after F6 booted the sh*t out of the play that there are 230 errors in the rule book, and Skip, this is one of them, and we're gonna use the MLB interp on it, okay? Yessir, that left fielder might of had a play on that ball, and I'm gonna penalize your runner because that bonehead shortstop of theirs can't field his farkin position worth a sh*t, and he happened to be running where the ball deflected.
You know, not all of us have a list of the 230 errors that the damn book still has in it. It really pisses me off when I hear this 230 errors crap, yet every year these damn mistakes are allowed to stay in the book.
I was never arguing the OP. I agree with everyone's assessment that if the ball hits the runner untouched by a
fielder, then he's OUT. Where did anyone get the idea that I was arguing this? I was only correcting JM's assertion that 7.09k said "no other fielder," when it actually says "no other infielder." That is all I was saying. Now all of a sudden, you have to keep up with this crap here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
How can someone who is good enough to be a major league umpire, who was trained by major league umpires, and who owns this publication continue to argue against the correct call?
Amazing.
|
I don't know about the arguing against any correct call. I did no such thing. But the rest of your paragraph is true.
Amazing? Indeed I am.
