|
Mon Jan 09, 2006, 08:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can anyone have an opinion contrary to yours without being insulted, Windy? Tim. 
|
|
Mon Jan 09, 2006, 08:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll never understand how you can confuse sarcasm for being an insult.
I have used plenty of self-effacing commentary in the past. Even when you erroneously accused me of saying I was the best umpire on the internet, I politely declined the praise. I've even gone as far as saying that I've never called a perfect game and that's why I keep going back. Me arrogance is Kevlar and an impetus for betterment all in one. When you understand these things, we can have an adult discussion. Putting words in my mouth is never a good thing.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006, 09:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Perhaps you meant to be facetious rather than sarcastic. Perhaps someday you will understand that the intent behind irony is difficult to discern over the internet.
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006, 05:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
et tu brute?
Since you opened pandora's box: Sarcasm, as utilized by moi earlier, is a literary tool used in a humorous or rhetorical manner. Plenty of authors use sarcasm in written media; if you venture beyond the occassional comic book you might learn that. (Was that sarcastic?) Sarcasm: (n) - A form of wit that is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. That would have been in used for the earlier post and in reply to yours. I'm not certain what purpose you had in exposing that weakness, but it made for some more fun reading. (Yes, that was more sarcasm!) Isn't that ironic? If you would like to discusss baseball or umpiring I would be happy to read and possibly comment. This was fun but silly. [Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Jan 11th, 2006 at 05:05 PM]
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Thu Jan 12, 2006, 11:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
As usual, you missed the point. Pandora's box indeed.
1. Regarding your earliear post, you can't admit the sarcasm and deny the insult. 2. Your sarcasm toward me is absurd, irrelevant, ill-informed, and a diversionary tactic away from your being mistaken. 3. I decline your invitation to discuss baseball or umpiring, as you've demonstrated an inability to distinguish good from bad advice (and good from bad physics).
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Thu Jan 12, 2006, 07:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|
|
Thu Jan 12, 2006, 09:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu Jan 12, 2006, 10:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve,
There is no way of knowing to what extent replay will change the game. First of all, my post predicts the elimination of umpires. Therefore, the cameras will make the decision on fair/foul calls or catch/no catch calls. I made no mention of any technology overruling and human made call. My post regarded the complete replacement of human, on field umpires with automated decision making equipment. Questec proves humans do not need to be in the line of fire to judge whether a pitch touches the strike zone. As the resolution of digital cameras improves along with lasers, and other forms of sensory equipment, any and all calls can be made with umpire replacing machinery. No more excuses, no more arguments... Truly a better world #$@ abetter world $(@)! a better world&*%$#$$^a better world Fizz, pop! D
|
|
Sat Jan 14, 2006, 06:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
One last thought...
When instant replay first became popular, fans clamored for it to be utilized because of blown calls. When pro football implimented it, some fans, players and coaches said that it would destroy the game. Did it? We saw a college football season put it to good use and a professional system that has damn near perfected it. The length of time and multiple angles help get the call right. That is what officiating is supposed to be about. Too often we find guys that say, just call it and let them figure it out. Instant replay has made officiating better, not worse. The accountability makes them hustle more, get into a better position and really focus on the play. Like football, basketball and hockey, instant replay in baseball would likely have a limited use. Those of you who can't figure out how it can be used for fair/foul or catch/no catch calls amaze me. In football those fair/foul calls are akin to the OOB or line call. (Was his toe on the line or not?) The catch/no catch is almost exactly the same in football. (Did he catch it or not?) I said it before, we can operate on a 60' field with one man. When you get to Varsity ball, you need two or three. The big boys use four and come play off time, six men are out there. The more eyes the better. The replay cameras are just that. The unbiased eye in the sky.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Sat Jan 14, 2006, 11:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah, what the heck. I'm up, the Pats lost so I'm in the mood.
Disclaimers: I can't dispute that accuracy is better. Science is always bettering our lives. Replay hasn't hurt football. The challenge element is strategic and almost makes it fun. Arguments (Blue, I'm not argiuing, I'm just talking...): My view is it's Paul Bunyon vs. the sawmill, cloning pepole, (D-man, D-man, we're talking about sports here)... Right, it's more like kids watching TV rather than reading. My opinion stems from a nostagic vision of the way it used to be (still is in baseball). I try to keep a certain work ethic and pride in this little hobby of mine. I don't know why I even care. I'll never work a game where replay comes into, well, play. Umpiring Baseball, MLB, is a profession that pulls the elite from an enormous and seemingly eternal proving ground. They miss so little. Especially nowadays with the cuurent trend of crews getting together to discuss certain calls. As far as my science fiction posts of robot players and computer optic officials, it's just that, fiction. It also reinforces my stance that unless technological help is going to absolutely ensure that no call is incorrect, then just let the human officials officiate the human game. Inconclusive replays should not be tolerated. I'm not saying it's wrong (let me submit a proof that replay is bad and a pitch can rise), I'm just saying I don't like it. D-MAN
|
|
Sun Jan 15, 2006, 05:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
|
|
Sun Jan 15, 2006, 08:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Context, Gappy:
Never blamed him. Take the play out of the magnifying glass. Technology could have fixed maybe one of those knees. Then the Sox lose in 15. I don't blame Grady for 03 either. The last guy to break the ice doesn't cause the ice to fail, he just gets blamed. D
|
|
Sun Jan 15, 2006, 08:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
|
|
Mon Jan 16, 2006, 09:18am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gedman (I think he's managing somewhere), Stanley (pitching coach for Norwich, CT AA team) all those accomplices are flourishing. Maybe if Rice hit into a few less DPs that year he'd be in the hall already. Now he may never get in. (background music: "Here on the island of misfit toys, here we don't want to stay".)
|
|
Mon Jan 16, 2006, 09:30am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now that's funny stuff right there! Hermie would be proud! "Nobody want's a baseball player with a hole in his glove." Tim.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
