Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
Obviously there's no big deal for an amateur umpire who knows the rule interpretations better than Jim Evans.
|
Garth, you know as well as I that my statement Re:Evans was only in response to whether a tie was possible or not. To take it out of context and imply or state that I feel I know rules better than Evans is dishonest and beneath you.
Why is using the word "tie" like putting garlic in a vampires nose to you guys?
You are so worked up over the word "tie" that you are being intellectually dishonest or you indeed did fail your logic class.
You go to a golf tourney and they have a Beat the Pro fundraiser for a hundred bucks.
The rules say if you "beat the pro" (get closer to the pin than him) you win a grand. There's nothing in the rules about a tie, no need. The rules say if I beat him I win. If we're both 6' 1" from the pin a TIE do you think I get the grand? Of course not, I didn't beat him. He didn't beat me but that wasn't the deal I had to beat him.
Now if it was a "If the pro beats you, you lose" fundraiser it's a different story, now if we tie I win. Words mean things. Still nothing in the rules about a tie but there was a tie and there was
no confusion as to the ruling or who wins or doesn't win the grand despite the fact that the word "tie"
never showed up in the rules.
You get the concept, it's just the garlic filling your head with hatred that has you in denial
Two questions
1. do you contend that it is a physical impossibility for the tag of the base and the touch by the BR to be at the same time?
If so so be it. I wouldn't want my son in your physics class but so be it.
2. If it is possible, what do the rules say about it?