|
Mon Aug 16, 2004, 03:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
At first I thought you wanted to intelligently debate this point but now I see you are incapable of actually using logic and common sense to actually discuss this issue.
To wit: Number 1: You are right it is semantics. That is exactly what we are talking about. The definition of words and how they can change the meaning of a sentence. Semantics makes a HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE when debating the definition of rules!!! Words must be precisely chosen and carefully applied so that their meaning is accurate and clear. There is a difference between "OUT OF ORDER" and "IN ORDER". It is the difference between having to touch an advance base to be "OUT OF ORDER" and just missing a base to not touch the bases "IN ORDER"!!!! It makes all the difference in the world and you write it off to semantics as somehow semantics don't matter. How foolish can you be. It is semantics. It is precisely the meaning of the words and how they are written that is in question. Number 2: I don't give a rat's A$$ about Nick Bremigan and what he wrote in Referee magazine! What ole Nick said doesn't mean crap if he tries to interpret another rule that is in direct contrast to WHAT THE RULES READ!!!!! I don't see anywhere in the rule book where 7.10(d) was extended to all bases. 7.10(d) doesn't even contain the additional note regarding the immediate area, 7.08(k) does. And 7.10(d) is specfic to the plate as well, just as 7.08(k) is. Quote:
The rule as written supercedes anyones dumba$$ attempt to somehow interpret it as applying differently. If you wanted to include the immediate area interpretation in the rule then 7.08(b) is the correct rule to "interpret". How about trying to actually make a logical argument against the in order versus out of order problem. And you STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME why 7.08(b) stated as follows, "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged" is somehow incorrect? The above is the actual rule that applies to a runner not touching the bases IN ORDER because of missing a base. It states that the runner can be advancing or returning to a base and be called out on appeal before he or the missed base is tagged. How is that rule wrong??? Did a runner miss a base? Yes! Is the ball in play? Yes! Is the runner returning to a base? Yes! Is the missed base tagged and an appeal made before the runner touches the missed base? Yes! Then all the requirements of the rule have been met as stated in the actual rule. So how is the rule wrong??? Answer the question with something other than some incorrect extenstion of another rule that directly contradicts the actual rule. Try! Please! I'm begging you!!! PLEASE!!!  Quote:
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates 
|
|
Tue Aug 17, 2004, 01:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
K:
Calm down. You will NEVER get Gee to agree with you. What's more, it doesn't matter: If you use the rule that you & I agree appears more applicable, you will reach the correct ruling on the field, as long as you remember that the runner has to be outside the immediate vicinity of the base and making no effort to return: THEN sustain the appeal, and which ever rule you rely upon to inform your decision, nobody will be the wiser. If the runner is "in the vicinity" and working on getting back, require a tag of the runner, not an appeal/tag of the base. THAT is an area where Gee is absolutely right, the OffInt is in BRD, as I cited in an earlier post. Yeah, I know, Gee smugly writes about the rule "obviously" saying something it doesn't say; and for authority cites nothing more persuasive than an article in Referee [which I doubt I've read] and another HE [Gee] wrote a few years ago [If memory serves, it may have been published on the ABUA site, & I think I read it. Don't know if it's still there]. So what? Even Gee agrees that if runner misses 2d, is half way [45 ft.] to 3d and making no effort to return, and the defense appeals the missed base, runner is out on the appeal. You say (b), he says (d): potato, potahto. --Carter
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2004, 08:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
MY FINAL ANSWER.
Carter, this is my last time by.
Your right I won't change my mind. I'm fully confident in my belief that 7.10(b) clearly means that a runner that has failed to touch a base in passing must touch his advance base before he is guilty of touching the bases out of order and liable to be appealed for a missed base. Also that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases including home and further that under today's rules, a runner is not guilty of missing a base, nor is he appealable, until he leaves the immediate area of that base. It naturally follows that a runner is not guilty of missing a base and appealable as soon as he fails to touch a base in passing. Unfortunately, Mr. K. disagrees with all three points. At least you acknowledge that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases but you fail to agree that under 7.10(b) a runner that has failed to touch a base in passing must touch his advance base, when applicable, before he is guilty of missing a base and appealable. Let me explain what led me to that conclusion. After writing 7.10(b) the rule makers found that it would not be applicable to the plate as their is no advance base so to make it compatible they used leaving the immediate area of the plate before the runner could be guilty of missing the plate and appealable and pretty close to (b). Now I ask you, why did they use leaving the immediate area of the plate for the violation and not the plate itself? As I have said above, they simply wanted to make (d) compatible with (b). Since (b) required touching the advance base and there is no advance base after the plate they chose the immediate area, simple. If, as you had originally thought, (b) means the runner is guilty of missing a base and appealable the moment the runner passed it, why in the world would they not keep (d) the same rather than make the immediate area applicable. Obviously your original though was wrong. Circa 1975, Nick Bremigan of the Baseball Umpires Development group didn't like the two different missed base rules and compromised with MLB to extend 7.10(d) to all bases which was successful. By doing that they achieved two things. 1. They made the missed base rule on the bases the same as the missed base rule at the plate and 2. They narrowed the point of a missed base appeal from the advance base to the immediate area of the missed base so the fielder would not have to leave his immediate area to make the tag. Now do me a favor. If you don't follow that or don't agree with it that is your choice but absent some reasonably valid counter to my explanation just ignore it. G. [Edited by Gee on Aug 19th, 2004 at 09:04 AM]
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2004, 10:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gee:
I think you have missed the point. I am comfortable with the OffInt "extending" (d); I've read it; I will apply it; I think K should, too. I understand your explanation of why you think what you think, it makes sense, although I am conscious that you have never cited any persuasive published authority for your "why" explanation [meaning the "advance base" issue, which is what has K all excited], nor do I see the need for some of the interpretation you insist is necessary. However, as [I think] you just wrote, I can easily ignore our difference of opinion, since it will make no difference on the field of play. Both you and I will get the play right if it happens while we are on the field. Consequently, I see no point in debating the issue just for the satisfaction of "being right": "A distinction without a difference makes no difference". I make room for the possibility that I might be wrong; even if you don't [ & I make no assumptions about that], we end up in the same place. Potato vs. Potahto: it's still a spud.  --Carter
|
|
Thu Aug 19, 2004, 11:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Have you ever read Rule 7.08(k)? If you had, and could comprehend what it says, you would realize the absolute folly of needing to extend 7.10(d). I'll give you one more chance to read the rule. It's quoted below. Quote:
Gosh, that's a great question? Got an answer? Here's another, does 7.10(b) state anything about touching an advance base to have failed to touch the bases in order? How about this, if the rule 7.10(b) states that a runner can be returning to a base but if a missed base is tagged before the runner touches it, he is out, on appeal? Where's the part about having to have touched an advance base? It seems the rule covers returning to a missed base? It even says that the runner could be advancing from a base and be out on appeal? Hummmm???? And here's my last really good question? Why would the people in baseball go to all the trouble of "interpreting" these rules in such a convuluted, round about, confusing way when all they had to do was, since first and home are covered by there own individual rules anyways, not just make a slight change to 7.10(b) so that it read the following: "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while advancing or returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged, unless he immediately attempts to return and touch a missed base. Note: Immediately returning to a base is definded as the runner not advancing past the cutout area of the missed base." I know, I know, that just seems to easy doesn't it? So, anyone care to answer any of the questions above or are we just going to drop some more chaffe! I'm on vacation till Monday, have fun!
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Fri Aug 20, 2004, 05:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I had promised myself that I would leave this alone, and it still looks like a spud to me; but I just got my spiffy new 2004 J/R. Lah me, and behold: Rick Roder also seems to think that the appeal for failure to touch a base is governed by 7.10b, with nary a mention of runner needing to reach the advance base before being vulnerable to appeal [see: J/R Ch.9,Sec.II(B)(1), pg. 71]. Guess the reading Gee likes ain't quite so "obvious" after all.
 --Carter
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 10:23am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carter,
I also said I would leave this alone but since you continue in your efforts to prove me wrong I find it necessary to reply. (Small grin.) I also have J/R but mine is the original editiion and not the new one that you have. I tried to match up your section with mine and I think I found it in "Appeal of a Failure to Touch a Base". My edition gives three examples and on the far right they refer to four OBR rules of which one of them is 7.10(b. All of the examples clearly state that the runner, who was appealed, had touched his advance base and an appeal is applicable under 7.10(b) OR (d)ext. If I have the wrong section, concerning the above, please let me know as I would be surprised if the book used 7.10(b) when the appealed runner failed to touch his advance base. As you read further into this section you will find that they use a 'relaxed' and 'unrelaxed action' concept concerning 7.10(d) and the immediate area. You also must remember that this book is authoritative opinion and not Official as it is basically a teaching manual and a great resource. G. Quote:
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 02:32pm
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
FWIW, the text is: A runner is vulnerable to appeal if (1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning)(within a body length) the final time. [7.02][7.04d][7.05i][7.10b] No 7.10d, no "reaching the advance base" mentioned. Quote:
The point I posted earlier was that J/R'04 cites 7.10b, not d for missed base, and never mentions any req. that runner reach or pass the advance base [in either direction]. Quote:
The discussion of "relaxed" action is instructive, I think: "In relaxed action, the runner (whose action is being appealed) is inactive; he is standing on another base, or is well removed from the base at which the appeal is being made. In unrelaxed action the runner ... is trying to scramble to a base ... Sounds like reaching the advance base is one possibility, but so is appealing a runner most of the way but not yet to the advance base, providing he's not trying to get back. Quote:
 As for our "disagreement", I'm not really worried about which of us is "right": it still looks like the same spud to me. As I posted elsewhere, I'm like a kid w/ a new toy. The J/R does make it easier to noodle out screwy situations, as much because it makes it easier to find ALL the relevent rules. Obviously, there is a format difference, and maybe also some differences in content, between the '04 and the original edition [from your description]: not having used the eariler, I would not be able to say if the current version is an improvement. --Carter
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 05:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carter,
Seems we have the same section and the text is the same as you quoted: "A runner is vulnerable to appeal if (1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning)(within a body length) the final time. [7.02][7.04d][7.05i][7.10b]. Then you say that there is: "No 7.10d, no "reaching the advance base" mentioned. ". >>>>> Why in the world would 7.10(d) be mentioned? He touched his advance base in all the examples therefore 7.10(b) applies. There is absolutely no need to apply (d). I realy wonder why you didn't acknowledge, in your recent post, the fact that the runner, in all of the examples given in J/R, did in fact, touch his advance base. It is right there in black and white and I made a direct reference to it, are you trying to evade the facts of the situation?. Yes, under "Constitution of an Appeal", the whole discussion of "relaxed and unrelaxed action" pertains to a missed base under 7.10(d). Remember this book is a teaching tool and not an interpretation book. As you write, "they describe "relaxed action" when the runner who has failed to touch a base in passing is inactive; he is standing on another base, or is well removed from the base at which the appeal is being made." I don't think of it the way they describes it. It means to me that the runner has simply left the immediate area of the base and whether he is returning or not, he is appealable under 7.10(d)ext. Of course if he is standing on another base he can now be appealed under either 7.10(b) or (d). They further describe "unrelaxed action as the runner......is trying to scramble to a base". To me unrelaxed action means that the runner has never left the immediate area of the base and therefore cannot be appealed and must be tagged. Does that remind you of 7.10(d)ext? Then you write: "Sounds like reaching the advance base is one possibility, but so is appealing a runner most of the way but not yet to the advance base, providing he's not trying to get back." If the runner reaches the next base, as I said above, he can now be appealed under (b) or (d) but if he goes most of the way he can only be appealed under (d)whether he is returning or not. As I mentioned before, the runner can be appealed if he is returning, scrambling back or whatever providing he leaves the immediate area of the base. Think of this: If a runner fails to touch second in passing and stops just before he touches third and starts to return are you going to disallow an appeal and make the defense chase him or get him in a rundown? The answer to that is an emphatic NO, you can appeal him at any time until he touches the now missed base. One of the things they accomplished by extending 7.10(d} was to stop the chasing. As to our disagreewment, reasonable people disagree. If you don't agree with my understanding of 7.10(b) and do agree that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases, the problem is solved. With 7.10(d) extended you will, I hate to say never but, never need to use 7.10(b) again, especially in light of the recent "Last Time By" ruling by MLB. Enjoyed your J/R it's a great resource, regards. G.
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 07:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Also, I'm wondering why you seem to be trying to spin past the fact that J/R never mentions adjudicating an appeal under 7.10d? --Carter
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2004, 08:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carter asked:
"Also, I'm wondering why you seem to be trying to spin past the fact that J/R never mentions adjudicating an appeal under 7.10d?" -------------------------- After you read the explanation for Relaxed and Unrelaxed action you come to Subsection C: Missed base appeals. The several examples on that are all from 7.10(d) Extended. They do not cite any OBR rule for the first three but it is obviously 7.10(d) extended. In the next part they discuss what is titled, "A missed base appeal of first (over-run) or home occurs when:". It's funny, because for that they cite 7.08(k) for home and 7.10(d), obviously extended, for first After you get into it you will find, like I have, that they don't dwell on the real tough, controversial stuff. G. -------------------------------------------------
|
|
Sat Aug 07, 2021, 11:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's relevant today because a similar play occurred in the Boston/Toronto game today. Worth a try. Thanks!
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
|
|
Mon Aug 09, 2021, 07:18am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW Thanks for reminding me how old I am 17 yrs! Damn!
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
|
|
Tue Aug 10, 2021, 12:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought I had wandered into McGriff's for a moment.
If anything, we should be grateful at how much more accessible tools and resources are today than they were then.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
|
|
Tue Aug 10, 2021, 09:30am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
