Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
True, but irrelevant to the play at hand as such an occurence was not stated in the OP, thus cannot be considered
|
Per my above responses, Timmy's justification to use this rule was that her base path was between her position, "X", and 3B... and Timmy wanted to say that she was now 3 feet from the "X-3B" base path... thus had violated the rule. When I explained that by moving backwards towards 2B, she had created a second and completely new base path, that's when it finally made sense to Mr. Timmy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Not so fast. You said think like the protest committee. I don't have to prove anything and to be honest, neither does the coach. Both parties offer their view of the play, the umpire states what they called and why. From there, the protest committee either upholds the protest of the misapplication of the rule or denies it.
|
I know. I said the coach thing to get you riled up...
