Interference by BR

[tibear]

Yes, I don't agree with the inconsistencies in the rules with regards to offense and defense. However, I would never let it cloud my judgement on the field.

Hell, I think we've all had to umpire games involving family members and we do that without bias. In fact, we probably call tougher on the family member's team without even knowing it.

Being from Canada and a huge hockey fan, I'm a big supporter of the new rule interpretations that the NHL introduced. Even though the rules prior to the lockout were there for decades and everyone knew what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. That didn't stop the powers that be from looking at the rules and seeing where there were problems with how they were being interpreted.

I think that type of thinking is healthy. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean that it is right.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

Yes, I don't agree with the inconsistencies in the rules with regards to offense and defense. However, I would never let it cloud my judgement on the field.

Hell, I think we've all had to umpire games involving family members and we do that without bias. In fact, we probably call tougher on the family member's team without even knowing it.

Being from Canada and a huge hockey fan, I'm a big supporter of the new rule interpretations that the NHL introduced. Even though the rules prior to the lockout were there for decades and everyone knew what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. That didn't stop the powers that be from looking at the rules and seeing where there were problems with how they were being interpreted.

I think that type of thinking is healthy. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean that it is right.

You make the assumption that there is a problem with the interpretation. There isn't for those who work at the MLB level and those who understand the rule. In fact, I haven't seen any problem with anyone above the LL level understanding this rule before you.

And, again, you have chosen to disagree with the rule. Fine. Disagree. But please stop whining that people are saying that it is right "just because it's the way it is." You have been given the reasons you asked for. You seem to prefer to ignore that.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by tibear

It's been stated here that baseball rules are written to the advantage of the offense which I personally find unfair. I also believe that rules are put into place to ensure fairness.

Having said that, I think we've both reached the same conclusion.

We'll agree to disagree.

Most of this discussion is giving me tired-head, but I'll jump in on this point.

It is NOT "unfair" that some, most, or all of the rules of baseball favor the offense.

Both teams in a contest get an equal number of turns on offense and defense. The same rules apply all the time, irrespective of which team is on offense or defense.

That's eminently fair.

[SanDiegoSteve]

If the game of baseball did not favor the offense, we would still be in the Dead Ball Era, and oh-what-fun that would be!

[D-Man]

PLAY BALL????

I've got four months to go before any ball gets played!

D

[LMan]

Any game where the offense fails to advance to even one base (much less score) 7 out of every 10 times (and where such a ratio is a tremendous success, and could put you in Cooperstown someday!) already has a tremendous DEFENSIVE advantage. The 'bias' you see is actually redressing the overwhelming advantage already held by the defense.

Why can't you see that?

[tibear]

Originally Posted by D-Man

PLAY BALL????

I've got four months to go before any ball gets played!

D

You're lucky, its five around here!