This really happened. Your not going to believe it!

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB
Tim:

I don't understand. If one can accept the concept of Authoritative Opinion, this case is closed.

How more authoritative can one get than all the major league umpires, AAA umpires, Both pro schools, the author of the BRD, and you?

But you're right, any further discussion will become meaningless argument. Time to move on to other issues, like, lets' say, does anyone actually call the batter out if he gets hits by a batted ball in "fair" corner of the batter's box?

GB

GB

You KNOW you have provided zero written support with exception of the BRD statement.. Even "the author of the BRD" indicates in his excerpt that you won't find anything in writing. I will add, except the rulebook, JEA, and J/R---which do not support the position you take, which is contradictory to the rule. While Childress seems to support most of what is in his comprehensive BRD with fact obtained elsewhere and summarized, it seems his position on this issue has no fact to support it---merely his opinion. So the fact that he prints it in a book should make it any less his opinion....????? Not !!!!!!
Do you think it has gone unnoticed by all that you fail to address the simplest of questions I have asked? Of course not!!!! Why? Because you don't have any valid answers to the questions !!! That is why they have been avoided.

Your ad hominem attacks are not unexpected. That seems to be the typical standard around here to regress to when you cannot support what you say with fact. It happened shortly before Childress got the ruling regarding the 4th Advantageous Out which supports REQUIRING the BR to run to first until put out after his at bat. Of course back then, I was going through this same type discussion with Warren Willson and others. Now, which way did PBUC, NCAA, and Fed all go with their ruling, Hmmmmmmmmm..????

Seems the rulings didn't support the position of "all the experts" of the boards. Maybe I lucked out, but that at least that makes me 3 for 3 on the positions I have taken and Childress has thought fit to check on. That sure seems better than the 50% Childress seemed so proud of over at the URC. Of course, as one poster put it, that's no better than a coin flip, is it.?

I will stick with what the rulebook, JEA, and J/R all state which will support my position. You can continue to contradict the rule based on what your friends tell you but won't put in writing. Maybe Childress WILL check this one out and PROVE me wrong.
After all, shouldn't contradicting the rulebook have SOME type of written support or even official interpretation?? If he can prove me wrong, that will be fine with me. At least finally at that time we will all then be able to find something worthwhile in print beyond opinion to support that position.

I would hope that we will then be able to agree---regardless of the outcome.
Until then, I must agree to disagree, and I will continue to enforce it on the field the way the rulebook, JEA, and J/R indicate it should be enforced.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Jul 9th, 2001 at 03:14 PM]