Being relatively new to the forums I am continuing to learn both about the forums and about baseball.
It seems there is more to talk about regarding forum etiquette than baseball. Perhaps someone should right a book on Forum Rules Differences (we could call it the FRD !!).
I agree with much said by both Carl and Hayes.
Carl certainly knows his rules, but is not infallible (as some very close to him may think). Hayes is certainly correct in that when someione tends to bring out a good argument vs. Carl that Carl can react with his little inuendos that tend more to personally attack his adversary than try to prove a point.
To summarize my feelings of this thread:
I think Carl is trying to sell an issue as a Fed interpretation that is not directly addressed by the Fed (in a word for word manner, thereby making it Carl's OPINION), that his interpretation is in direct contradiction with NCAA and OBR interpretations, and that possibily could provide him something to be added to a book called the BRD. I bring this up ONLY as a POSSIBLE outlying motive in this OPINION of interpretation which is contradictory to the other rules.
Reality being that the purpose of Fed rule 6.2.4b is to require pitcher TO STEP to the base he is throwing or feinting to. To read anything into it beyond that is either witch hunting or looking for a new page for the BRD. That position is supported by Fed casebook 6.2.4d which refers to a feint made with the shoulder (thereby acknowledging a feint in the eyes of the Fed does not have to include arm movement). Now from there, you can read into it whatever you want regarding what else must move because the shoulder did. Furthermore, Carl's Fed interpretation is not applied by umpires under any rules at any level for a pitcher merely stepping to 2nd in attempt to drive back R2. It is difficult to accept Carl's interpretation when, in reality, it is only applied at one base!
Carl, accepting your fine points on fact that an arm MUST move if a pitcher legally steps, then I can agree with you. That point denied, I cannot accept your interpretation. That only means we disagree. That doesn't mean I am not a learned umpire, as you like to imply because I disagree with you. It does not mean I am not a serious umpire, as you stated in a previous thread since I disagreed with you. It just means we disagree. You may be right, or I may be right. However, until such time as the Fed specifically addresses the issue, I prefer to accept my interpretation over yours. Get them to accept yours and I will also do so (reluctantly).
Now that I am bold enough to disagree with you, you may wish to start thinking up new cuts to throw upon me. Please remember, though, the difference between a respected wit which gains respect and obvious arrogance which loses respect can sometimes be a fine line.
BTW, Merry Christmas
[Edited by Bfair on Dec 25th, 2000 at 01:49 PM]
|