The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 16, 2004, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
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:
Rule 7.08(k) In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision. This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

versus

7.08(d) He fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged.
Here's a suggestion: stop trying to argue 7.10(d) applies to all the bases. If someone tried to extend the "interpretation" of 7.10(d) to all the bases then they "SCREWED THE POOCH"! YOU CANNOT INTERPRET OR EXTEND ONE RULE SO THAT IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER RULE!!!

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:
Originally posted by Gee
Sorry K, Carter tried that above. It didn't work then and it won't work now as like I told Carter, your dealing in semantics and not baseball rules.

So you don't agree with my interpretation of (b) which was reinforced by by Nick Bremigan in a Referee article, and you don't agree that (d) was extended to all bases. You still believe and I'll quote you: "Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base."

Then you say, even though we are dealing with All the bases I should use 7.08(k) instead of 7.10(b). Sorry, can't do that. 7.08(k) is specific to the plate where 7.10(d) deals with all the bases since it was extended.


No matter which one you use, they both contradict you when you say a runner is guilty of MISSING the plate the moment he fails to touch it in passing. Under both rules the runner has to leave the immediate area of the plate before he is guilty of MISSING it and appealable. Just like (b) where the runner is not guilty of MISSING his previous base and appealable until he touches his advance base. Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that nor do you accept the extension of 7.10(d) Pick a winner. G.
















First off, please get your terms straight. The rule refers to touching the bases "IN ORDER". It mentions nothing of touching the bases "OUT OF ORDER". While this seems like a small point, it means a world of difference and it is what makes your argument fail.

If the BR touches 1st then misses second and goes halfway to third, he has not yet touched the bases "OUT OF ORDER" because he hasn't yet touched 3rd. Agreed.

However, the rule does not specify that the bases cannot be touched "OUT OF ORDER" is specifies that the bases must be touched "IN ORDER".

If the same BR touches 1st and then MISSES 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases "IN ORDER" specifically because he has missed a 2nd base.

A runner can fail to touch the bases "IN ORDER" by missing, in our example, 2nd base on his way to third.

Out of order can't really happen until an advance base is touched, I agree with that.

Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base. If a runner misses 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases in order, due to the missed base, and can be called out on appeal, according to rule 7.10(b) which could read "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."

See the difference between "out of order" and "in order"?

And 7.08 (k) is the rule you probably should be quoting as dealing with the immediate area argument after missing home.



Quote:
Originally posted by Gee
Mr K, I'll try this one more time.

If a runner TOUCHES first and then TOUCHES second and then misses third and goes half way to home he has TOUCHED first and second, that's all he has TOUCHED, he has not TOUCHED any bases after TOUCHING the first two in order therefore he has done nothing wrong.

Having done that, how can the runner possibly be guilty of TOUCHING bases out of order if he has only TOUCHED first and second, they are in perfect order?

Now, if the same runner TOUCHES first and then fails to TOUCH second in passing and then TOUCHES third he has now TOUCHED one and three but not two, therefore once he TOUCHES three he's guilty of TOUCHING the bases out of order and appealable.

If you only TOUCH #1 and then #2 you are in order. If you TOUCH #1 and then #3 you are out of order, simple as that.


There is absolutely nothing in 7.10(b) concerning a missed base until AFTER they have been TOUCHED out of order AND appealable so if you have only TOUCHED #one and #two there is no violation but if you do TOUCH one, the second you TOUCH three you are guilty of having TOUCHED the bases out of order and are appealable.

If you don't fully understand that, there is no sense in going any further because that is the basis for the extention of 7.10(d). Once you grasp that fact let me know and I will answer the rest of your questions. G
---------------------------------------------------


[Edited by Gee on Aug 16th, 2004 at 12:58 PM]
[/B][/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
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 17, 2004, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
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
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 18, 2004, 08:23pm
Gee Gee is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 305
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]
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 18, 2004, 10:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
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
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 19, 2004, 11:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Quote:
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.
Clearly you have no concept of what the English language or what reading comprehension skills mean. You can't even get the language of the rules right. The rule states the batter must not "fail to touch the bases in order" not be "guilty of touching the bases out of order." Are you really that dense?

Quote:
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.
Explain to me why anyone needed to extend 7.10(d) to all the bases when there is already a rule that covers that specific thing?

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:
Rule 7.08(k) In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision. This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.
So why if, the rules specifically cover a play at home in 7.08(k), would there be any need to extend 7.10(d) to cover all the bases when that is covered in rule 7.10(b)?

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
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 20, 2004, 05:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
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
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2004, 10:23am
Gee Gee is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 305
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:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
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
[Edited by Gee on Aug 21st, 2004 at 11:31 AM]
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2004, 02:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee
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.)
Yeah, we probably both need to get a life.

Quote:
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".
I think you are looking at the same section.
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:
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.
Well, none of the examples given in the '04 ed. cite a rule by number, and none really addresses the "advance base" issue: the only one where it occurs is a classic "last time by" sitch, not really helpful on this question.

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:
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.
The only places in this area I can find 7.10d cited are subsections on "Constitution of an Appeal", and "Retouch Appeals", in which d is referenced for the principle [from the cmt/casebook] that an appeal must be obvious and intentional.

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:
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.
Absolutely, but it is a darn sight nearer Gospel than your or my opinion.

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
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2004, 05:44pm
Gee Gee is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 305
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.






Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2004, 07:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee
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?
Well, maybe I misunderstand the advance base issue, but, as I wrote, only one of the 3 examples in the '04 J/R seem to raise advance base issues, and that one is clear last time by, so it's not helpful.

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
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 21, 2004, 08:54pm
Gee Gee is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 305
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.
-------------------------------------------------

Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2021, 11:16pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule View Post
Saw this play at a Phillies game:

BR beats the throw to 1B, misses the bag, and overruns 25 feet or so. (Routine overrun, no turn whatsoever.) Umpire signals safe. F3 then holds the ball up to the umpire, stomps on 1B, and waits for a call. (I don't know whether F3 said anything. It didn't look like it. But I don't think it would have mattered.) Umpire just looks at F3 and makes no call.

Then, as BR is returning to 1B, F3 tags him. Umpire signals out.
Nothing like calling out a 17 yr old thread...but is there a chance anybody has this video clip?

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
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 09, 2021, 07:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NeverNeverLand
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
Nothing like calling out a 17 yr old thread...but is there a chance anybody has this video clip?

It's relevant today because a similar play occurred in the Boston/Toronto game today.

Worth a try. Thanks!
Sorry, I don't. Do you have a clip on UE of the above?

BTW Thanks for reminding me how old I am

17 yrs! Damn!
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 10, 2021, 12:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 926
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?"
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 10, 2021, 09:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
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.
This is nowhere as raucous (for want of a better word at the moment) as McGriff's was.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1