I ain't letting it go

[rex]

Sorry I'm not a sheep. I don't and can't buy that answer.
You might be the messanger but that ain't the message. THERE IS A REASON.With people like Earl Weaver you just don't and can't say JUST BECAUSE.

rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
Sorry I'm not a sheep. I don't and can't buy that answer.
You might be the messanger but that ain't the message. THERE IS A REASON.With people like Earl Weaver you just don't and can't say JUST BECAUSE. rex

rex:

1. So, you don't want to be a sheep, huh? When I spoke to Fitzpatrick, he didn't give ME a reason. I didn't ASK for a reason. I never do. That would make me a goat.

2. You need to move up on the highway and take a paper, rex. Earl Weaver doesn't manage anymore, and the PBUC makes ruling for MINOR league baseball.

3. Let's discuss one last issue.

It's 4.09(b). You were all hot to trot after my friend Thane Yennie brought that up, "Eureka! I've got it, by George, I have got it!"

You wrote: "Ya done brought it all together for me and ya don’t know what ya did. It’s not 7.10. You said “ending play”. It’s rule 4.09(b)."

I wrote: "That's a good try, but you don't get the cigarette. 4.09(b) deals only with an awarded base that may end the game. The whole purpose of 4.09 and PENALTY was to require players to advance after the winning run. It had become a custom for the batter-runner to simply go directly to the clubhouse."

That's didn't convince you (because Carl Childress wrote it, and who the hell is he? So...

You wrote: "4.09(b) and PENALTY say nothing of an appeal. Case plays yes but the rule no. But the case plays don't address what we've been talking about. Yet the last sentence of the PENALTY would make it the fourth out in our play."

And...

You wrote: "Rule 4.09(b) is enough. It tells me the B/R has got to run it out."

That one sucked in the EWS fellow, but he looks for any crumb in his attempts to prove he's better at baseball than I am. BTW: Give that Illinois guy credit. He didn't fall for your siren call. Of course, he's still straddling the fence. Oops, that's painful -- for some guys.

Therefore...

I went to a lot of trouble (800 words) to post the passage from the JEA.

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I reminded you last night.

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I'm reminding you again. You owe me something like: "Geesh, Guys, how could I have been so ignorant. Next time I'll believe Carl when he tells me something about baseball."

That's just common courtesy, Rex, uh, I mean "little r" rex. Is that symbolic, I wonder?

[rex]

3. Let's discuss one last issue.

Supper!

In past threads you have mentioned how would I not follow the rules of debate. Knowing how you earned your daily bread one would think you might well have been involved with debate teams during your active career.

I was in debating only of a short time but enjoyed it very much. The one thing that really made a debate interesting was when you'd study the hell out of a issue and be all set to SUPORT said issued then at the last minute you where told to AGAINST the issue.

Your opposition had the same facts as you, so now it was all based on skill.

Your skill as a writer is will document. You have all the information.

Now tell me how 4.09(b) IS the rule that supports PBUC's ruling.

After all that's what debate is all about, proving your right even if know your wrong.





BTW-- Carl I thought we had an understanding. I won't play your other game.


rex

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by rex

After all that's what debate is all about, proving your right even if know your wrong.

You can debate the values of an issue, but you can't debate facts. You can debate why or why not abortion is morally wrong, but you can't argue that Roe v. Wade does not exist, or why the Supreme Court ruled that way.

Carl has given us the PBUC ruling. We can argue why or why not the ruling is fair (which there seems to be no debate on that issue), but rex is arguing why and how the PBUC made this ruling. Unless we ask the PBUC directly their intentions, we don't know -- they just expect us to rule that way.

Again, I plead that if someone is truly against this ruling he/she should take it up to the PBUC directly, because arguing your case here obviously isn't getting anything done.

Dennis

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I reminded you last night.

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I'm reminding you again. You owe me something like: "Geesh, Guys, how could I have been so ignorant. Next time I'll believe Carl when he tells me something about baseball."

That's just common courtesy, Rex, uh, I mean "little r" rex. Is that symbolic, I wonder?

Sheesh...talk about self-gratification.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
You might be the messanger but that ain't the message. THERE IS A REASON.With people like Earl Weaver you just don't and can't say JUST BECAUSE.

Rex, you simply CANNOT use the Official Baseball Rules as evidence for why the PBUC made a decision. That's what's known as "circular reasoning". Since each and every PBUC official interpretation becomes the Official Baseball Rule on the subject, what you are saying is let's use the rules themselves to help us decide why this is a rule. Illogical and false reasoning.

If the PBUC stated its reasons, as Dennis Donnelly said, then there would be no need for the discussion. Absent that explanation "from the horse's mouth", there can be no inference drawn from elsewhere in the rules themselves to prove why a particular rule came to be. Simply saying 4.09(b) proves that the batter-runner must advance so that's why they allow 4 outs is a non sequitur. First of all, 4.09(b) doesn't clearly establish that the batter-runner is required to advance on the base path after a 3rd out, and even if it did it wouldn't necessarily follow logically that this had anything at all to do with the PBUC's decision to allow the non-appeal 4th out!

Rex, this is a windmill not an ogre and so it's not worth "tilting" at with your lance. What we have been debating is not WHY the PBUC made the ruling, but instead HOW that ruling conflicts with all of those that have gone before to become rules, and even with the ab initio fundamentals of the game. Even before base ball became baseball, 3 hands out was the limit for both the offense and the defense. THAT is why this decision is so incongruent and that is why this debate continues to rage.

Cheers,

[umpyre007]

[Deleted by moderator]

[Edited by Brad on Apr 1st, 2001 at 08:17 PM]

[rex]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
[B]

Originally posted by rex
You might be the messanger but that ain't the message. THERE IS A REASON.With people like Earl Weaver you just don't and can't say JUST BECAUSE.

Rex, you simply CANNOT use the Official Baseball Rules as evidence for why the PBUC made a decision. That's what's known as "circular reasoning". Since each and every PBUC official interpretation becomes the Official Baseball Rule on the subject, what you are saying is let's use the rules themselves to help us decide why this is a rule. Illogical and false reasoning.

Cobber,

That would be true if this were a NEW ruling, but it has been dated as being around at least sence 1995. Thats the date of Carl's J/R. Is not my fault he didn't know the rule was there. I'm just the messenger ya know. Don't blame me take it up with the people that didn't inform him it was there.

rex

[rex]

Thanx Brad

rex

[senior]

Maybe we can get on with the good questions and answers now that this issue seems to be resting?
I can't wait for the games to get heavy, and give some of us a chance to work off some steam.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
Cobber,

That would be true if this were a NEW ruling, but it has been dated as being around at least sence 1995. Thats the date of Carl's J/R. Is not my fault he didn't know the rule was there. I'm just the messenger ya know. Don't blame me take it up with the people that didn't inform him it was there. rex

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 after 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]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex

Cobber,

That would be true if this were a NEW ruling, but it has been dated as being around at least sence 1995. Thats the date of Carl's J/R. Is not my fault he didn't know the rule was there. I'm just the messenger ya know. Don't blame me take it up with the people that didn't inform him it was there.[/B]

Whoa, Rex, this hasn't been an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION "since 1995" (sic). That only happened with this recent ruling by the PBUC! What has 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,

[umpyre007]

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

[rex]

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

[rex]

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