BRD on lodged batted ball

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


What I'm saying: I wonder if the Red Sox are ever going to lose a game.

You know exactly what I mean, and you are fooling not one soul on this Board who knows anything about your "history."

Read the introduction to the BRD, even in your antiquated edition. When I "interpret" a rule, I say so.

And you know that. As does everyone who owns a copy of the BRD.

Knock yourself out -- solo.

I'm just amazed it took me so long to figure out you weren't seriously interested in advancing your "knowledge" of the FED.

Stupid.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 06:44 PM]

As a voice from the past I'll say.................
this entire issue brings to mind Carl's past interpretation that Fed required arm motion as part of a feint to 3B during the 3-1 pickoff play (ref. 2002 BRD Section 353) while OBR and NCAA did not . This interpretation was significantly argued between Carl, myself, and others. Still, I don't recall The BRD's old, incorrect ruling as noting that it was merely Carl's interpretation of the rule (perhaps I missed something in my BRD issue). Of course the Fed has now directly addressed that issue and Carl has, of course, now corrected HIS interpretation within The BRD to coincide with the correct interpretation.

I also note that the 2003 BRD, section 353 indicated that under NCAA rules it is legal for a pitcher to feint to a base from the pitching plate without a need to first step there. While I note that Carl has not indicated this to be HIS interpretation, I find this interpretation to be in disagreement with NCAA rule 9-3c which specifically states:

The pitcher, while touching the pitcher’s rubber, must step toward
the base, preceding or simultaneous with any move toward that
base. [my emphasis]

I don’t know if Carl has made any corrections to his later BRD’s, but I will note that I’ve pointed out this inconsistency in interpretation many times to Carl with his failure to even to care to address the question of the inconsistency.

Since I've been off the board for awhile I won't fail to add that The BRD is certainly one the best values for any umpire to add to his library. However, be careful in accepting all of its interpretations without question. When something seems unusual, use The BRD’s rules references to specifically read those rules to assure the interpretation shown agrees with the written rule. If it seems not to, look for an interpretation reference supporting The BRD’s indicated ruling. If not shown, assume it may be mere author interpretation---and quite possibly incorrect. Carl was proven wrong many times in our past arguments.


Just my opinion,

Freix