|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
"To your point: I certainly agree that the benefit of the doubt does not ever go to a team that broke the rules. But that's not what I understood you to say. I said: When you are trying to decide whether a fielder is obstructing the base path or not, give the benefit of the doubt to the fielder."
Carl, I find this last sentence to be in contradiction with Fed casebook 8.3.2c. Which is correct? I am confused by your response. I think we would agree that a player obviously breaking the rules is guilty. I felt what we were dicussing about the DOUBT factor was whether or not that player broke the rules. That is where I apply the philosophy of not allowing the benefit of doubt to go the potentially offending player. I feel that is APPLIED by Fed in the 8.3.2c reference. Am I correct in understanding you now agree with me that a potentially offending player should not receive the benefit of doubt?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
"Remember, the base path belongs to the fielder, not the runner. I stand by my statement. "Looking for obstruction" is an amateur's way of viewing baseball."
I am further confused by this statement. I felt the fielder ONLY had right to the basepath when he is priveleged and fielding a batted ball. I felt all of our previous discussions dealt with THROWN balls. I will agree, however, that there are situations where a fielder does have a right to a basepath on THROWN balls. Those being when he MUST OCCUPY that position as a RESULT of his effort to glove the ball, and also when the fielder has possession of the ball.
Yes, Carl, I AM an amateur umpire as I suspect most in this forum are. I won't consider that name-calling nor am I ashamed of it.. Furthermore, I officiate amateur players. I do it because I love the game. I DO receive small renumeration for my efforts, but that is not why I do it nor should that qualify me as a professional. In addition, we amateurs are very appreciative of the efforts you provide. YOU HAVE EARNED the respect you receive (including mine).
When I officiate I attempt to do so by the rules for the FAIRNESS of the contest. I try this by knowing my rules, interpretations, and mechanics and APPLYING them accordingly. I have attempted to prove a point in this thread by using historical reference provided by you and others, rulebook, casebook, training literature, and some opinion (both mine and yours "To your point: I certainly agree that the benefit of the doubt does not ever go to a team that broke the rules"). Point being: This type of play is sometimes unsafe, not likely within the intent of the rules, and could be better controlled through officiating. The fact that it is frequently overlooked at any level does not make it fair or legal.
In closing, I am not here to offend you. Rather, to state my opinion and show through verifiable print where and why this interpretation should be practiced. If I have offended you, I SINCERELY apologize. My purpose is not to be confrontational.
I would, however, like to see your response to my question posed you at the end of my 11/8/00 posting. Should you not respond, you indicated you have bowed out of this thread and I shall realize why.
[Edited by Bfair on Nov 9th, 2000 at 02:33 PM]
|