Re: Re: Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

Rex:

You've misunderstood something important about "Da play."

Jaksa/Roder included it in their 1995 edition, true. But their "ruling" is merely "authoritative opinion." Someone on another Board questioned the ruling, there was a debate, umpires took sides, and I offered to put it to the PBUC for an "official interpretation." During the off-season, as it were. (I usually ask my questions <b>after</b> the season, not before.)

Carl Childress expected that Mike Fitzpatrick would disavow the J/R ruling; that is, I thought he would say: "After the defense makes a third out during live action, we're not going to let them make a fourth out during that same live action."

After all, that's what I was taught at my father's knee about 55 years ago. I bet the same is true of you. Before this month, had you ever considered that the defense could make a quadruple play?

Instead, on Jan. 27, 2001 (my 41st wedding anniversary), Mr. Fitzpatrick said: "Hey, we'll call him [B1] out also and cancel the run."

The play has been around for over 10 years; it was in the first edition of J/R as well.

The official interpretation has been around for two months.

I'm certainly glad to clear up any confusion on that point.

[Edited by Brad on Apr 1st, 2001 at 11:39 PM]

Re: Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

Whoa, Rex, this <i>hasn't</i> been an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION "since 1995" (sic). That only happened with this recent ruling by the PBUC! What <i>has</i> been around since 1995 was J/R's authoritative opinion that this non-appeal 4th out play should be allowed. That OPINION wasn't shared by any other source, official or otherwise, until now. In fact it contradicted a fundamental tenet of the game. What's more, given the PBUC's hitherto expressed lack of regard for the value of J/R as a means for reporting "official" professional interpretations, it would quite properly have been ignored as aberrant until the PBUC gave it credibility. Thus it truly IS a "NEW ruling", at least in the "official" sense. Anyway, what does all that have to do with not using the rules to prove themselves in circular reasoning?

Cheers,

Embarrassed?
 

Hmmm......WW's "moderated" post has been removed? :D

Re: Re: Re: Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

Before this month, had you ever considered that the defense could make a quadruple play?


Ya,

But I have such a crappy memory I had forgotten this call. Wasn't untill Bob J. (I think) said ending play did it come back to me and I knew where to look. It's 7.12 to 4.09(a) to 4.09(b) to 7.10. It ain't just one rule it's all the above.

As for makeing the call I don't think so, not in youth ball. That is of course I got me a savy Manager that knows the rules.

Hay I made a funny (you know manager that know the rules)

Any way if it were appealed I would have to make the call even in youth ball.

And with that good night fourth out.

rex

Re: Re: Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

Anyway, what does all that have to do with not using the rules to prove themselves in circular reasoning?


Cobber,

Because the rules I numbered is where PBUC got their"OFFICAL interpretation". Ya can't interpret a rule that ain't already there.

rex