Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08
Haven't seen it on a pitch lately though. You know what I mean.
|
No, I don't know what you mean. You are saying that the reason for the catcher having to catch the ball (on the fly) is because "The ball must be caught ... for there to be an out". But that's simply not true at other positions. You're trying to parallel two things that are perpendicular. Your analogy is 100% flawed, as is your premise. The whole post made no sense. The catcher has to catch the ball because the ball must be caught for there to be an out ... except it doesn't... unless you're the catcher. Huh?
"F3 must catch the ball for there to be a put out." Not true - it can bounce.
"If F2 doesn't catch strike three we do not have a put out." True.
Completely the opposite - so why use one to explain the reason for the other?
(No worries ... last week, my boss said, "These two situations are exactly the same, except that they are opposites." Kind of like you just did.)