I ain't letting it go

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

IF there are less than three outs -- BR must go to first or be declared out (or put out). That's the case play.

If there are three or more outs, BR doesn't need to (I'd say "can't legally") continue to advance. That's common sense. [/B]

Thanks for being bold enough to at least address it, Bob. It is apparently something Childress has no answer for.

So, you now agree BR is required to go to first or be declared out if less than 3 are out. This requirement comes from Chapter 8---Baserunning. Being called out is due, therefore, to the infraction of not advancing when required to advance. This is a baserunning infraction---not batting, fielding, substituting, etc---rather , baserunning. It is penalized in accordance with Fed 8-2 Penalty (Art.1-5).

So why may I ask is he not required to go to first to complete a play that started with less than three outs? The PBUC has ruled (in agreement with J/R) that an advantageous 4th out can be obtained at first, and that the BR must complete the play, at least to first base, which he started when there were less than 3 outs or BR risks being put out at first. Therefore, since not going there would be a baserunning infraction he could be put out on appeal. How is that done in OBR---by tagging him or the base. (BTW, that is exactly the means by which the PBUC ruled---correct?). How is that done in Fed---same as OBR, or the official will declare it at end of playing action if not played upon.

Of course, all of this is predicated upon the fact that the PBUC ruled that the BR effectively is required to advance to first base on any play that started when there were less than 3 outs. This is the concept Childress and Willson refuse to accept---despite the PBUC ruling. They don't like the ruling because it differs from their opinion, and they wish not to accept it. Furthermore, appplying it to Fed, since Fed has not ruled, is consistent of past practice of Childress and others. Carl just doesn't want to do it here, because to do so would not support his position.

Let me quote Childress from a previous thread:
Carl Childress, eUmpire, thread "where do these interps come from":

Umpires have four ways to handle “points not covered”: (1) precedent; (2) analogy; (3) authoritative opinion; (4) official interpretation. An umpire who knows how a top dog in his association treated a given play can apply that ruling in his game and — consistency. If something happens in your fED game and you can’t find a rule, use one from another book (analogy). At least you have some written documentation somewhere to bring to your defense. Authoritative opinion and official interpretations speak for themselves. The BRD has official interpretations from Rumble, Thurston, Deary, Jones, Fitzpatrick, the PBUC minor league staff, and the Instructions to the National League umpries. It includes materials from the FED and OBR case books. You’ll find authoritative opinion from McNeely, Bremigan, Brinkman, Jaksa, Roder, Evans, Wendelstedt, and Winters. You’ll even find two references to the “General Instructions.”

Please note Childress says "consistency". That is the primary factor he lacks in trying to prove his points. He says what he wants to prove what he wants. He wishes not to use his "analogy" concept here because it does not support his cause. Real consistent, Carl. (sigh)

Now, we have no specific Fed interpretation except for a casebook play that says the runner must advance or be called out (running infraction), and a Fed rule acknowledging advantageous 4th out. Both of those, if accepted for this example, would differ from the eUmperors. We have J/R speaking of OBR which differs from the eUmperors. We have a PBUC ruling that could be applied to Fed, but the eUmperors say no (because it doesn't support the position of the eUmperors).

Does no one else see that the eUmperors are saying "just take my opinion and no one else's---even PBUC, even J/R, even past practice of analogy we, the eUmperors, have preached."

Childress keeps saying "Prove to me a runner is required to advance". I have cited the rule. Childress can only comprehend two words of that rule and those are "in order" but he cannot understand the other words of that rule "shall touch" also have meaning. He chooses to only see that which supports his view, and refuses to address that which does not. I have provided authoritative opinion---J/R, PBUC, and Childress himself (quoted regarding analogy)---yet he won't accept it. I have shown Fed casebook and scoring rules---and Childress won't accept it.

Well, Mr. eUmperor, why don't YOU PROVIDE something to this forum beyond your OPINION proving that the BR is not required to advance to first base. Everything else, including customary practice of the game itself (which you like to cite) says he is required to advance. Perhaps I am the bad boy because I am not a "snuffalopogus", but I need more than your opinion, and to date, you have provided nothing beyond that. It is always possible the Fed at sometime might rule in accordance with your position, but they may not. Until then, I consider the rulebook, casebook, PBUC, and J/R as higher authorities than eUmperors.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar