|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 12:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hmmm,
Quote:
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 12:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Rich, I said I couldn't check the rule. You don't have to yell!
 Yes, that is the ground rule double rule... Quote:
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 12:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
In checking with J/R, it seems that the key point is that the fielder has possession of the ball. If the fielder has possession and then the ball propelled into DBT, TOT is then determined to be when the player propelled the ball into DBT after he gained possession. He, in effect, threw the ball into DBT, unintentionally of course.
In any event, it is a two base award from TOT.
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 12:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now that you are an adult, albeit a rat, you should be able to to differentiate between those that earn respect and those that don't. If not, I have lost any sort of respect I had for you. Lapopez, it is obvious that you respect these guys. No problem, it seems that you understand your role in the pecking order. You might want to pull out a rule book and ask the question instead of paraphrasing it. Geezsh, next thing I will hear is how we should hold hands with Al-Qeada and tell them we are sorry. In the words of Papa C, "Lah me!"
__________________
Alan Roper Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here - CPT John Parker, April 19, 1775, Lexington, Mass
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 01:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was taught to respect those who EARN IT!
That makes for some questions. Do you assume they deserve it until proven otherwise? If not, until you've decided they earned it can you treat them like dirt? How do you decide they've earned it? What do you do if you later find that they were right and you were wrong? How do you earn the respect of others?
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 03:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmmm,
Intersting questions, but simple (too me):
Everyone in my book starts out at chapter One, paragraph one, sentence one and word one. They are all equal and have a clean slate. As I said no one "deserves" respect (example: some people would accord the sitting President respect because of the position -- others would disrespect the individual by perfomance or ideals) -- I would respect the postion but have to gain respect for the man. I would hope that I would not treat people like "dirt" but I do have a certain "disdain" for all people on first blush. People can earn respect in so many ways how the fuk could it be defined. I have learned to respect several internet umpires . . . I don't necessarily like them (only know their cyber role they play) but I respect them by performance. I even respect a few coaches (managers). As my mother taught me long ago: "I'm not always right but I am never wrong!" Respect has to do more with other items than right and wrong . . . while I can respect an umpire that misunderstands a rule or simply ignores a rule that is a different respect than I would give Pablo Picasso if I had met him. I do not wory about gaining respect. As an umpire I prepare well, practice hard, work dilligently to correct my weaknesses and hustle on every play (I never take a play off.). If that gains respect that is fine -- if it does not that is also fine. Remember that I only umpire for power and money . . . this means I have only one person to satisfy and that is myself.
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 03:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now that you are an adult, albeit a rat, you should be able to to differentiate between those that earn respect and those that don't. If not, I have lost any sort of respect I had for you.
I can differentiate. The question/issue is 1) how you interact prior to the decision point and 2) how you treat people that don't earn it. Also, lack of knowledge in one area doesn't necessarily translate into other areas, so respect for the same person can vary based on the subject at hand. You have to keep things in perspective and not place a blanket judgement on people based on one subject. Being a rat doesn't mean I don't have a reasonably good grip on the rules. Several people here have a superior knowledge of the rules, which I respect and learn from, but it doesn't mean I'd invite them to a party. I can't even spell calculus but I can put together a pretty good cost proposal. I can respect Ricky Williams' ability as a running back or Randy Moss' ability as a receiver while, at the same time, thinking they're "just a bit" nutty.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 04:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm surprised even an old curmudgeon tried to use a softball book to support a baseball interp...
But even worse - a softball book written in NINETEEN FRIGGIN EIGHTY THREE likely has as little to do with SOFTball as it does to baseball. In 83, softball rules had to be written to fit EXTREMELY inexperienced players. The game is much more "baseballish" today than it was then, although they have definitely evolved separately and rules differ in many significant ways.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 07:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 08:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hmmm,
Quote:
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 09:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Hmmm,
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry to be blunt, but you come across as very wishy-washy. You're so afraid of conflict that it does seem rather incongruous that you would be a baseball umpire. I suspect the reaction I have had to your posts in this thread is similar to Tee's, prompting him to ask if you can make a tough, controversial call in a game situation. It's a fair observation.
|
|
Thu Aug 11, 2005, 09:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm,
Quote:
|
|
Fri Aug 12, 2005, 07:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Suggested technique: "After our discussion the other day I went to my rule book and I still think it says..." Pulling out your book and turning to the page, "the rule reads...doesn't that mean..." If your buds turn their back on you and aren't willing to engage, then it is time to find a new group of pals. If one of the FNG that I talk ball with pulls this stunt on me it shows me three things: 1) he is in the rule book studying 2) he has the balls to get the rule right 3) he wants to learn I will work with a guy like that any day of the week.
__________________
Alan Roper Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here - CPT John Parker, April 19, 1775, Lexington, Mass
|
|
Fri Aug 12, 2005, 08:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hahahaha,
The original poster wrote:
"Do you then, by default, disrespect those who have not yet earned your respect?" Golly, why should I fall for a Rush Limbaugh type question? Rush often says: "You're either a conservative or a liberal, there is no middle ground!" And you have tried to make me sit in the situation. I would guess that even dumb people would recognize that there could be three easily identified levels: "Disrespect", "Neutral or open minded" "Respect" . . . You have already proven to be wishy-washy I think you have made that quite clear.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
