View Single Post
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 14, 2011, 03:55pm
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 UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
Chris,

If you were to actually read the rules, you would see that it is unequivocal and crystal clear that:

1. For Fed and NCAA ANY advances on the pitch/play during which the improper batter completed his at bat are nullified if the defense properly appeals.

2. For NCAA and OBR ANY outs obtained by the defense on the play/pitch during which the improper batter completed his at bat are nullified if the defense properly appeals, with the proper batter's out superseding that of the improper batter had he been put out on the play.

3. As I said earlier in the thread, there is NEVER any penalty for "starting" an at bat with an improper batter under ANY of the three rule codes.. As all three rule codes clearly and unequivocally state, all advances and outs made during the improper batter's at bat stand.

4. There is ALWAYS a penalty for COMPLETING an at bat with an improper batter (if properly appealed). There is enough ambiguity for "reasonable people" to disagree, for OBR only, if that includes the "return" of a non-forced runner who advances when the at bat ends on a WP or PB.

Yes, I'm sure.

5. Who, pray tell, are your "contacts", and why would anyone find their collective opinion "persuasive"?

JM
Now JM - that's rather rude. I think you are way out of line brotha. If it was unequivocally clear we would not be having this discussion. You yourself said you weren't sure...and until I provided you with actual research and solid information, and all you had was a theoretical persepective based on literal interpretation. Only now that I have done the work for you are you "sure". Shameful.

We are on the same team and I will not hold your irrational responses against you. But I find them also to be opportunistic and unproductive. It is also pretentious and unreasonable.

Who my contacts are is none of your business. I have no intention of dropping names on you to prove a point. That they are many in number IS relevant in pointing out that the rule is not written unequivocally crystal clear.

Again - you are way out of line.
Reply With Quote