|
|||
Quote:
I apologize to everyone. I didn't realize my chain was being yanked. My bad! [Edited by Carl Childress on Jan 21st, 2002 at 03:12 PM] |
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to read the rules, Childress
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B] Quote:
Quite simply, you are the stupiest person I've ever run into, short of an institution. |
|
|||
Carl Childress, Papa C: I'm new in this site, so I don't know what history you have with other posters and therefore what might be setting you off, but I'm not yanking your chain. All I want to do is understand how to apply certain rules in various situations. The posts have partly answered my questions but are still conflicting and confusing.
The FED book apparently contradicts itself, or is at best very ambiguous. The proof is that several obviously knowledgeable umpires would rule differently on certain variations of the play I brought up. I thought the reference to the SCOTUS might lighten things up a bit, that's all.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide! |
|
|||
Quote:
Freix, for example, is a particularly annoying person because he doesn't understand baseball -- but thinks he does. My resume is available. I would suggest you choose between a JV official (like Freix) and someone who's been writing on the rules for a quarter of a century. Take it or leave it: I've done my last word on this subject. Hell, it's something any first-year official knows, and the language of FED is perfectly plain. |
|
|||
Childress, while I'll not lower myself to your level of insult or namecalling, I'll just again highlight that your self-professed success of 50% accuracy in making interpretaions has dropped immensely over the last 6 months with the many "misses" that you've had lately.
If you like, let me know and I'll list them for everyone. Your record that was once no better than a coin flip at getting interpretations right is now far below that. Most would be more accurate in leaving their coin at home and just accepting any position against yours. The odds would be in their favor of being correct on any new interpretation (and, unfortunately, even some old ones). Worse, we've seen you support issues as ridiculous as a fielder's need to chase a runner throughout the outfield to get close enough to touch him before you'd call him for leaving the basepath. While Babe Ruth was once a great home run hitter who ended his career with many strike outs, he was remembered for what he gave to the game. Please take it as a compliment, Childress, that you also will be remembered among officials for the same. I mean that sincerely. It's just a shame to now watch you strike out so frequently and try to hide it with your insults and inuendos. Wouldn't it be better to be remembered as having just a little bit of class? Think about it as you go back to correcting the BRD again. Just my opinion, Freix |
|
|||
Re: Re: You need to read the rules, Childress
Quote:
For the record, this issue was discussed with Tim Stevens in a private forum. Tim, I believe, is a writer for eUmpire and a Fed interpreter for state of Washington. Tim advised:
Hmmmm.............. So it seems at least for this point in time that Tim has provided us the proper way to determine making an award in Fed, and it is, indeed, based upon the runner's actions at the time the ball becomes dead, as I earlier reported. Freix [Edited by Bfair on Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:06 PM] |
Bookmarks |
|
|