[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Eastshire,
When you persisted in defending your incorrect position, even after I had given you cites from the MLBUM, the OBR rule book, and the FED rule book - and then suggested I hadn't provided "any references"

You said you provided a reference to THE authoritative book, by which you apparently meant the MLBUM, but I took to mean OBR. You didn't (and can't) provide a reference to OBR that says a catch is not a play because it doesn't say that, the MLBUM (probably) says that.

2. This does not surprise me. Have you ever heard of the J/R or BRD? How about the JEA? How do you know you've never worked a game where the MLBUM/PBUC Manual has been adopted as authoritative. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous "points not covered" in the FED rules where the MLBUM or PBUC interp IS the "official" FED interpretation. Others where it is not. So, once again, you are mistaken. (In case it's not clear, that is NOT a personal attack. It's a simple statement of fact.)

I know of BRD, but it isn't much use to me as I only work Fed so the differences aren't that important to me. Can you provide a reference from the NFHS that says that the MLBUM and PBUC is the official Fed interpretation? I very much doubt this is true as I've never heard it suggested in any rules meeting I've attended.

3. I'm still trying to figure out who, other than you, made any kind of ad hominem argument or personal attack on you. I certainly didn't. And, if you read what he actually wrote, mbyron did NOT call you an idiot. (Neither did anyone else, as far as I can see.)

Then you should reread your posts. Or to save time just find my post were I quoted you arguing my competence rather than discussing the rule/

Listen, all I did was try to help you understand a technical point about the rules (which, I'll grant, is NOT intuitively obvious) which you misunderstood. I provided you with the appropriate cites to back my point, along with an explanation of how they applied to the sitch in question.

You provided nothing in the way of anything to back up your mistaken position, falsely accused me (and others) of attacking you, and claimed I hadn't posted references when I had.

Anyway, you're welcome; I'm glad I was able to assist you in clearing up the misunderstanding you had about this rule. I look forward to our next discussion.

JM

I can't say that I do.