Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
This thread began with collinb saying:
Did anyone see the Cubs vs Astro's game Sunday where Cub announcer Steve Stone was explaining that the hands are part of the bat and the hitter should not get first base when hit in the hands?
Chad responded with nothing more than: well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not.
He was clearly referring to the latter portion of Chad's comment ... about the batter being awarded first.
|
Dave --
If you're going to quote the thread, quote the entire thing.
Between the original post and wobster's reply was this, from MArio:
"Refer to page 569 of your rule book and you will see that the statment is correct!"
Wobster's post was made an hour (approx.) after Mario's post. It's not unreasonable to think that wobster's reply was to Mario, and not to the original poster.
Quote:
To interpret Chad's response as meaning, "The hands are part of the bat if the pitch was struck at" is simply a ludicruous conclusion to reach unless you're predisposed, by bias, to believe that's what he meant.
|
Except that many people think that the statement above ("hands are part of the bat...") *is* true. It takes no bias about Wobster to think that he might think the same thing.
|
Bob:
Add to that the title of the thread: Hands part of the bat.
It was quite natural to read Wobster's post as addressing that portion of the first post.
It seems to me that no one has acted out of a bias or any preconceived notion here.
Tue Aug 31, 2004, 12:57pm
Threaded Mode
