View Single Post
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 14, 2011, 01:35pm
Chris Viverito Chris Viverito is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The worlds of H.S., JUCCO, D3 - D1 baseball.
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
I agree that the "authorities" differ on OBR. I thought we were (and I was) discussing FED.
I am discussing FED. And NCAA and OBR. Several mentions re: NCAA and OBR have been brought up in this discussion as well. J/R would detail a rules difference for both if they are aware of it. I understand their 'authority' does not necessarily extend to that, and that their authority is certainly a perceived one, not an official one. I am not suggesting the reference is an authority. Just that it is a solid reference to "clearly define baseball concepts taken for granted", and that the text clearly is in contrast to the 'runners return' argument.

Sure - the J/R manual can be wrong. The Fed test's can and have been wrong too. Obviously - my intent here is to discover what is 'right' and dispel the rumor or misconception for good. I know...'good luck'

From my own study and interpretation I do not conclude differently from any of the three codes. Specifically - if the FED and NCAA want it called differently they should make an open and specific case play or directive to dispel the perceived myth and/or debate.

Several mentions have been made that the Fed part 1 test had a similar question and the answer supports the 'runners return' position. I am not disputing that it exists, but I would like to see it. I do not see it in the 50 questions posed for 2011. Is it somewhere else?
Reply With Quote