Catch? Out?

[SanDiegoSteve]

It does have an ignore poster feature. Go to User CP at the top and you'll find it. I had him on ignore, but I kept reading his post in Tim's quotes, so I ended up having to read his crap anyway, so I unblocked it.

[BRump]

Looking through the rulebook I think I see where PWL is getting his information. Under rule 2.00: "A Foul Ball is a batted ball...while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground."

According to this, it would seem that once the ball touches the first player it becomes a foul ball.

[NFump]

That would be correct. However, the runners do not have to wait until the foul fly ball is caught to start their advance, they may leave on first touch of the ball just like a fair ball. If the foul fly ball is dropped then it becomes a foul ball and they must return. PWL is trying to save face by twisting this to a "when can they advance" issue when it's a "when may they start their advance issue".

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by BRump

Looking through the rulebook I think I see where PWL is getting his information. Under rule 2.00: "A Foul Ball is a batted ball...while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground."

According to this, it would seem that once the ball touches the first player it becomes a foul ball.

I don't think there's any doubt about where he got this idea, the point of contention is how you interpret the rule and come to the conclusion that a runner must wait until a fly ball is foul territory is caught.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

I am not trying to save face. I'm trying to have an open discussion on the rule. The only problem is that is has been railroaded by the likes of BigUmp56 and SanDiegoSteve with a little help from Coach JM.

You have not been trying to have an open discussion. If you had, we would have had an open discussion about how wrong you were, you would agree, and then you would shut up about it. Instead of doing this, and just admitting you were mistaken to begin with, you crack back on the two people that you have had it in for since day 1.

We have only corrected you in the past in hopes that you would learn and become a better official. You chose to overpersonalize our criticisms and lash out with personal attacks. Perhaps we were a bit heavyhanded and sarcastic in our original criticisms of you, but we take the same kind of remarks all the time when we have a gross misunderstanding of a rule or procedure.

Nobody "railroaded" anything. We just gave the correct interpretation to an ambigously written rule, and you have decided to make it your Waterloo.