Ball Hit a Second Time

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Dave - great, complete answer.

Ozzy - I don't have my books in front of me at work. My apologies.

No problem, I have the same problem. Still friends and no apologies necessary!

[UmpJM]

Ozzy,

I am glad to see that Dave H.'s well-written and thoroughly documented post has clarified the proper application of this rule for you. And I certainly agree with your assertion:

"This is a great example of how to answer a question."

However, I find your characterization of the discussion on the previous thread disingenuous at best. (For anyone who cares, it's the thread titled "2 calls" initiated by bossman72.)

Having read through the previous thread carefully, the only thing written that could in any way be reasonably characterized as an "attack" were my comments in my initial post on the thread, quoted below:

I'm not sure where ozzy gets his material, but he really ought to find another source. He has misinformed you in both cases, and your partner's rulings were correct in both cases (assuming played under OBR - which is what the "big boys" who play MLB play under). He has apparently never actually seen a rulebook. Unfortunately, he has no hesitation in spreading his misconceptions - as if he were someone who knew what he was talking about.

While I suppose these comments were "unnecessary", I don't believe they were in any sense "uncalled for".

The reasons I included them in my response to Bossman's questions were:

1. He said he was an "inexperienced umpire".

2. He asked reasonable questions about two calls his more experienced partner had made in a recent game to verify their correctness.

3. You gave him incorrect answers to both of his questions in your initial post on the thread.

4. You included disparaging remarks about LL in your post that were both irrelevant and "uncalled for". (No, I don't "do" LL.)

5. I found the "tone" of your reply arrogant and condescending.

6. You seemed to present yourself as an "expert", yet offered no "source" for the misinformation you were spreading (i.e. rule cite, accepted interpretation).

I found the combination of ignorance and arrogance embodied in your reply annoying and irresponsible.

I believe that most of the people who come to this forum do so in order to improve their understanding of the rules and to assist those less experienced in improving theirs. I thought your initial post was detrimental to the purpose of the board.

Since bossman72 is relatively new to the board, I thought I'd give him a "heads up" that you can't take everything you read as "gospel".

While I generally refrain from making antagonistic "ad hominem" comments in my posts on this board (those would be comments such as:

"I am referring to 2 deleted posters and a wandering wise a$$ to the board."

or

"How many of you "coaches" just sat there scratching your a$$es until one of us REAL Umpires posted?"

in case I'm not being clear), on occasion it seems appropriate. Also, if you can't "take it", don't "dish it out".

Again, as a point of fact, the only thing that could be construed as a "demand(s) to find the related rule" in the entire thread (you seem to suggest this is a bad thing???) is mcrowder's reasonable request:

"If you still think you're right, tell us why and post the rule."

in response to your "I'm taking my ball and going home" post, which you offered as your last comment in response to bossman72's reasonable questions.

Ultimately, the readers of this board will make their own decision as to whether your comments or mine contributed more to the discussion and whether your characterization of the discussion or mine was more accurate.

Having said all of this, I have no interest in "feuding" with you.

I thought your comments in this post represented an intelligent inquiry into the proper application of a rule which is commonly misunderstood because of the way it is worded. If you enjoy making occasional "wisecracks" in your posts, hey, it's a free country - I certainly have no business sugggesting you shouldn't.

By way of a "peace offering", I would like to offer the following. You seem to think you would be violating copyright law if you were to post selected portions of Carl's BRD in support of a position you had on a question. Now, I am NOT a lawyer (despite my opaque and verbose writing style), but I believe that this would be perfectly OK. I'm sure Carl will not be "shy" in correcting me if I have misspoken on this point. I would encourage you to read the U.S. Copyright Office's discussion of "Fair Use" which can be found at the link below and decide for yourself.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Peace.

JM

[Dave Hensley]

Just when we were all fixing to have a group hug and sing Kum-baya.

[ozzy6900]

CoachJM, you're a veteran on this board and I was laughing when I read your comment about where do I get my material.Rich Ives also had some humor in his response but there were 2 posters that hit the other thread around 12:00 or so. Not very professional and I cannot remember who they were. When I returned from lunch, the posts were not there anymore. It's okay, because after I got ticked off, I started this thread and we all got educated.

I'm so happy, I'm going to crack open a beer!

[UmpJM]

Ozzy,

Cool. I think I'll follow your lead, beverage-wise.

JM