Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
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)
|
Geez, Steve, if it makes you happy go ahead and call it that way in FED. You may run across this play once every 15 years. I can't believe you've argued that the BR is required to advance solely to justify your ruling on a play that 99% of umpires will never see. Your arguments have become so complex that I'm not going to waste my time trying to disect them and point out the fallacies in your logic.
We all agree that the PBUC ruling is seemingly in direct conflict with the rules that the defense only gets 3 outs. What if the PBUC did a 180 and reversed its decision? Then your entire argument becomes irrelevant! Instead of attacking Carl, Warren, and all the other "eUmperors", maybe you should attack the PBUC; your efforts are being wasted here.
Dennis
"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" -- Booker T
Fri Mar 30, 2001, 11:30am
Threaded Mode
