McCarver's idea of a good call
 

Tim just said that Laz Diaz' call was a good call since Lugo was out of the batter's box when the bunted ball hit him. Lugo's front foot had yet to touch the ground when the ball bounced off his leg. He should have called it foul, but he called Lugo out for getting hit out of the box. Bad call.

And while I've got a harangue, Joe Buck must know better than to call a foul ball a foul tip. Tonight he said, "That's a foul tip" when the batter fouled the ball off the edge of the catcher's mitt to the ground. I don't mind when they say "foul tipped in and out of the glove" or something similar, but to come right out and declare it to be a "foul tip" when it's not is just an unacceptable practice.

Why couldn't Buck just call it a foul ball, or explain what a foul tip really is? I'm sure he knows better. He could actually educate the uneducated fans out there instead of perpetuating their ignorance of the rules.

more mccarver...in one word he continued to show how much of a moron he is.

"changeup"

after okajima threw a nice 11-5 sweeping curve.

good work, tim.

Is this a kind of passion, to point out that T-Mac is an idiot? Fish-barrel-shoot? He's a self-absorbed slobbolla and has been since hde was banging cheerleaders at CBHS.

Except that Diaz was right.
Therefore, making McCarver right.

We will duly note that you do not like Tim McCarver.
Feel better?

Actually, I like T-Mac. On the field. All those Catholc boys were hard-nosed mothers. Off the field?

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart. :D

How do you figure he was right? He was still in the box when the ball contacted him, making it a foul ball. You must have at least on the ground outside of the box when contact is made with the body to be an out.

Because he moved into the ball and was hit in fair territory.

In the batter's box, or are you too thick to catch that important piece of information?

He can't read Matsuzaka's pitches either. Threw a nifty 87 mph slider in the ALCS. McCarver: "That's a wicked changeup!"

You are confusing two different rules. To be guilty of an "illegally batted ball," you must have at least one foot on the ground completely outside of the batter's box when the bat contacts the ball. However, this is not a case of the batter hitting the ball while out of the box. This is case of the batted ball hitting the batter while out of the box. Where the batter's feet are is irrelavent when contact is made with the ball. If the contact is outside of the box then the batter is out for interference.

Richard is correct. If a fair batted ball makes contact with that part of a batter outside of the batter's box, he is out, dead ball, etc. etc. If said contact occurs against that part of a batter still inside the box, the official interp. is that it's simply a foul ball, even if it occurs in that small portion of the box that is technically in fair territory.

Now, here's today's trivia question: What percentage of the box is in fair territory? (Disclaimer: Chris Jaksa went into a fun geometric discussion of this in umpire school lo those many Moons ago.)

This one comes up from time-to-time and the play in question is being kicked around on several forums.

We have rules that clearly define when a batter is considered "in the box" prior to a pitch.

There are rules covering a batter being "in the box" when contacting a pitch with the bat.

But there isn't a rule that specifically defines what constitutes being "in the box" for a batter being contacted by his own batted ball.

A batter being contacted by his own batted ball while still being "in the box" is regarded as a foul ball- and he could be anywhere "in the box", despite McCarver's attempt to delineate a "fair" and "foul" portion of the box, which really doesn't apply on this play.

So what interpretation covers this? If the batter still has one foot in the box is he still regarded as being "in the box"? Does he need to have both feet in the box? Are the feet disregarded and the contact judged by any portion of the batter's body extending out beyond the boundary lines of the batter's box?

I'm guessing this is one of those interpretations covered by the professional umpire's manual- the one that I don't have any access to!

I think you're reading into it a bit too much. The ruling is what I mentioned in my preceding post: if the ball contacts that part of his body that is outside the box and in fair territory, he's out on the dead ball; otherwise, it's a foul ball.

Forget the box.

Take a runner coming down the third base line who gets hit by a batted ball. What determines if he is out or not...the position of one foot, or the position of the ball and body part when he is hit?

I don't have access to additional replays this morning, but as I remember the event at the time, contact was made in front of the plate, not in the "fair" portion of the batter's box.

A batter's box is 48" by 72" which is an area of 3,456 sq. in. Home plate is 6 inches from the edge of the box. The edge of the foul ine that determines the terminus of fair territory cuts a 45° angle across the box. The foul line cuts off a equilateral triangle from the corner of the box where each leg is 30" long. Doing the math, the area of that small triangle is 450 sq. in. The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

I'll take your word for it, but only in a Euclidean universe. And you meant isosceles triangle, didn't you?

Since an equilateral triangle has equal sides and equal angles, and considering one of the angles in the "fair" triangle is 90 degrees and no triangle has 270 degrees, I'd guess he'd have to meant an isosceles triangle.

What I'm arguing, and what I'm sure Francona was arguing, is that Lugo was still in the batter's box when the ball contacted him. He had not yet left the box. He had started to leave the box, as the ball hit him while his left foot was in mid-air on its first step. Still in the box. Hadn't yet left box. Not yet out of batters box. If a ball bounces up and hits the runner before he has left the batter's box, how is he out?

I thought we discussed this at length and determined that to call the batter out on this was OOO. If the batter had already left the box, I could understand calling him out, but he had not even taken a step yet.

Steve, I believe that has to be tempered with where the contact took place. If the contact was clearly, as I remember in this case, in front of the plate, I believe MLB umpires are going to call the out, whether or not his foot as yet touched the ground.

Yes, isosceles trangle. I was a geometry teacher in the 80's. I should have caught that one.

But if we "forget the box" we won't be able to make any sensible call on this play! ;)

Being struck while either in or out of the box is what determines the difference between a foul ball and the batter being called out. So we had best not forget about it.

In your analogy, the fair or foul status of the ball as it hits the runner is clearly defined by rule and that rule can be verified by anybody with a rule book.

A batter being struck by his own batted ball while still in the batter's box is covered by interpretation- an interpretation that conflicts with other written rules and appears in materials not readily available to the general public.

Other posters have stated that they have the "official interpretation". I suppose that "because I said so" might fly, but let's pretend I'm from Missouri.

Show me!

Ok, that makes sense when you put it that way. I would probably have a hard time selling that to a HS coach, however.

I'm guessing this is one of those interpretations covered by the professional umpire's manual- the one that I don't have any access to!

I don't see it in there. However:

J/R: "If a batter chops a ball toward the dirt or the plate and it immediately strikes or comes up and strikes the batter, or his bat, it is a foul ball only and not interference. This usually occurs while the ball is over foul territory, but can occur over fair territory."

"It is not interference if [the batter's] batted ball bounces and immediately comes up and hits the bat a second time while the batter is still in the batter's box (foul ball)." [2002 BRD: "The same rule would apply to a batted ball hitting the batter."]

Evans gives some history and acknowledges the problem but seems to say that the safest call is foul: "Professional umpires try to scrutinize the exact feet location when a drag bunt is attempted. In most all [sic] other situations in which the batter is hit with his fair batted ball, the ball is ruled 'foul' if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box."

[Emphasis is mine.]

Perhaps the best way to call it is similar to "ball hits bat" versus "bat hits ball." If the ball bounces up sharply and hits the batter over fair territory before a foot is out of the box, then call it foul. If the batter's foot, not yet on the ground, hits the ball over fair territory, then call the out, with benefit of the doubt going to the batter.

Richard, you might be interested to know that a co-worker recently finished his Ph.D. at Penn, his thesis being on what educational factors are key to success. The single most important course was geometry. (Now whether studying geometry leads to success or people who are going to be successful take geometry is another question, but geometry was the key marker.)

I probably should not have assumed that you knew I was making an analogy by saying, "forget the box." My error.

Excellent. You're almost there. Read the rule again.

I could read the rules again...and again...and again...but that would not change the fact that, in regards to the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there exists an interpretation that proves to be the exception to the rule.

There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play.

I understand the analogy you were trying to make, but that analogy takes the leap of faith of equating a foul line with the batter's box lines and a batter who has just hit the ball with a runner already on base. There are rules and interpretations that clearly make distictions and exceptions between these conditions.

I have the J/R manual and had read the quoted passage before posting. I have also seen the Evan's interpretation before and that is what led me to believe this play should have been ruled as a foul ball.

As the Evan's interpretation says, "the ball is ruled foul if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box".

What I was looking for was something published in black and white- as opposed to something interpolated from other unrelated rules- that gives a clear definition of the phrase "within the confines of the batter's box".

There is no rule in the professional rule book or OBR that addresses the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there is no rule about it! (FED addresses it, but not the OBR)

We only have the unofficial interps from J/R, JEA, BRD, to go on. I don't recall what or if the PBUC manual might say about it. I'm sure somebody out there will check.

Exactly true and it wasn't implying that there is.

Which fits right in with the next sentence from that post: "There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play."

What I was refering to in the part you quoted is that there are rules about runners being struck by fair batted balls, but there are exceptions to these rules offered by interpretation (ie: the exception of the batter still being within the batter's box).

I take it that the rules Garth is encouraging me to read are the unrelated rules from which he is drawing his analogy- but that is just my guess.

Not only that, but an isosceles right triangle (which is even easier).

Welcome to the board, Richard, nice to have you here.

I knew that name looked familiar.;)

You are correct, though Jaksa rounded it down and said 13%.

Congratulations on being the first one to submit the correct answer. Contact Mr. Jenkins for your prize. :D

How about the balk call in game one. It was obvious that the pitcher stepped more towards home on the pick off move. Those clowns announcing the game didn't have a clue until they played back the "sounds of the game" when the umpire could be heard explaining the balk call.

Really? I heard them say right away that the umpire must have felt that the pitcher did not step toward first, but McCarver thought he had stepped enough toward first.

Ol' Ed made the proper, gutsy call, while Laz stood there at 1B like a statue in the set position.

I didn't catch that. They re-played it several times and questioned why the 1st base umpire didn't call it. It was a great call for sure.

Hope all is safe for you down there. I had a lot of friends that had to be evacuated. Fortunately none loss their homes.

Depends on who lines the boxes. lol

After watching the replay a few times, McCarver finally understood what Ted Barrett was doing when he made the out call at the plate on Manny. I knew that Barrett had a tag and was just making sure Torrealba held on to the ball. Great play by Yorvit and great call by Barrett, who McCarver had already started raking over the coals.

Steve,

Don't give McCarver credit...It was Joe Buck who first realized and then insisted that Barrett had delayed his call to make sure Torrealba had held on to the ball...McCarver then subsequently agreed with Buck.

Not that I like Buck...but in this case if Buck wasn't there, McCarver would still be going on about Barrett having delayed his call because Manny "didn't touch the plate," and how wrong Barrett was, blah, blah, blah.

During live action and the first two replays I thought Barrett had missed it. Then they showed the third replay...Good call!

McCarver is clueless.

Sergeant Major
 

Fox screwed up and showed 1st sergeant insignia instead of SGM. When referring to Veratek.

Same here.

On the live play and the first replay, you couldn't tell if the plate was touched. The sliding runner blocked the view of the plate and the tag.

The next replay showed that Manny's hand definitely got in there, but you couldn't really see the tag.

That third replay- which was from the same perspective the umpire had , looking up the third base line- caught it all. The tag then the touch in rapid-fire succession.

Nice camera work, nice positioning and a nice call!

Next they will have him upranked to LCDR. :D

Yes it was a great call! McCarver is a complete Moron!!! He and Joe Morgan are in a class by themselves. Jim Palmer is a close 3rd.

my .02
 

I want to remember this everytime I hear people calling for instant replay for baseball.......3 replays to get to the answer that the human umpire got the first time at game speed......

great call..

McCarver was a player so his comments on umpiring need to be taken with a grain of salt.

McCarver should stop, look and listen before he makes his comments.

Before the replay even showed he said it was a bad call because he was looking at Manny's expression. He also doesn't know umpire mechanics. The call was delayed because Torrealba wanted to make certain that F2 held on to the ball which is what he was supposed to do.

That's why I personally liked it when Fox had Steve Palermo in the booth. I do not know why he is not there anymore.

McCarver comments on things too quickly and more often than not he ends up with "egg on his face"

That's why one needs to take comments about umpires from former major leage players with a grain of salt. They are "coming at things" from a different perspective.

Pete Booth

Here is why McCarver is an idiot:

Last night, McCarver is all over Barrett stating that Barrett had not made an immediate out call because he (Barrett) thought that Manny had missed the plate. (sigh) He continued to say this over and over until...Joe Buck stated Barrett was waiting to make sure F2 held onto the ball. McCarver then imediately (within seconds) agreed with Buck.

Flash back to about five years ago. After a controversial call on the field, McCarver ripped the umpire(s) for minutes on end. (I believe it was an obstruction call). MLB sent an umpire executive into the FOX broadcast booth to explain on-air (which the exec. did) why the umpire had gotten the call 100% correct. McCarver then spent the next several minutes arguing with the executive (I think it was Palermo) that he and the umpire were wrong.

So in Tim's world: The opinion of Joe Buck (who has no umpire training) on umpiring issues carries more weight than a retired MLB umpire turned MLB executive.

That is why he's an idiot.

For a real hoot, Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot." It appears we are far from alone in our opinion.

Here is a link I could really get behind:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/f...natures-1.html

This begs the question if she was one of those you referred to in your earlier post (#4) above.

Originally Posted by fitump56

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart. :D

McCarver banged CBHS cheerleaders girls who were from Catholc HS Immaculate Conception, Sacred Heart and St. Agnes. No girls allowed at The Brothers. :(

Knowing Laura, she was Episcopalian and not a cheerleader, for 40 plus years, she was and is a class act. Which is why leaving McCarver was a no-brainer.

T-Mac rebounded and married Annie in, oh, mid 60s?

Another MacCarver is an idiot story.

I refer to a book authored by the late MLB umpire Eric Gregg, Behind the Plate. I read it about ten years ago. Gregg spends an entire chapter on how MacCarver has screwed up issues where he did not understand the rules or in one case, the ground rules, and made Gregg look bad.

Gregg wrote about a play-off game, broadcast nationally, in a NL stadium where the bullpen is on live ball ground. Gregg wrote that as long as he had work in this park, if the ball went underneathe the bench in the bullpen, by the ground rules, the ball was out of play, and dead. However, that day at the plate meeting, the home team manager stated that if the ball went underneathe the bench in the bullpen, by the ground rules, the ball would remain alive and in play. The fielder had to go get it.

Gregg questioned the manager at the HP meeting to be sure it wasn't a mistake. He was assured they wanted to change it. During the game Gregg was on 1B for the game and, of course, a fair ball ball went under the bench in the bullpen, and Gregg did not kill the play. The BR got a triple.

MacCarver when on for several minutes ripping Gregg for not calling the ball dead. There was no argument on the field about the play. MacCarver kept saying how that any ball he has ever seen go under a bence has always been a dead ball. MacCarver had no idea what the ground rules for the field were changed that day.

The story goes on. Aparrently the home team did not benefit from that "under the bench" triple. So the next day they came out and annouced that today they were going back to the old ground rule and the ball would be out of play if it goes under the bench. As you would expect, during that game too a fair ball went under the bench and the 1B umpire that day killed the ball. Once agian MacCarver went on for several minutes ripping Gregg once again for not calling the ball dead on the previous day.

Unforntuately, Gregg did know anything about this until after the play-off series was over when he got the chance to watch the video tapes of the games. Otherwise, he said he would have gone up to the booth and spoken to MacCarver about those call.

Which begs the question, are you a logician? :)

beg the question = to use an argument that assumes as proved the very thing one is trying to prove

In fact, I am, AND I play one on TV. ;)

I have my doctorate. I know the so-called correct and classic definition of "begs the question."

I also understand that, unlike Latin, the English language is an evolving language and much to the chagrin of some professors "begs the question" has become, as the New Oxford Dictionary of English puts it, “widely accepted in modern standard English” as a replacement for "raises the question."

However, know that I understand that you are are a "purist", should I post to you, I'll dust off my 19th century English.

Verily!

Kind or ironic that this came up in a thread where we were discussing a rule whose hard and fast reading conflicts with the generally accepted application of the rule.

Our discussion of the rule still begs the question of whether or not there is a documented definition of what constitutes "in the box" when a batter is hit with his own fair batted ball!

Yeah, there is .

A batter who hits a ball into fair territory and runs into the ball, even with a foot in the batter's box, is out.

How in the world is this tough to figure out?

I have my doctorate.

In what? Just curious.

My job is to edit the research papers, journal articles, and informational reports of people with doctorates in medicine, economics, statistics, law, and so on. Many of them also teach at Princeton and Penn. They appreciate it when I change begs the question to raises the question (and explain why).

the English language is an evolving language

True. Finalize and prioritize were long scorned as business jargon, but they turned out to be useful and are now acceptable in certain contexts. But please let's not weaken precision or lower standards. Has just between you and I "evolved" into correctness because of its widespread usage? Is hopefully, it won't rain now educated usage because some dictionaries allow it? Would you use laws more honored in the breach than the observance to mean laws more often broken than obeyed? Most people do. Most people say I feel badly, too.

Why bend the meaning of begs the question if it's just as easy to say raises the question? Why not reserve begs the question for times when you want to convey its true meaning, especially when modern style books caution against its incorrect usage?

Why say thus when you mean therefore or impact when you mean affect?

Please don't think I'm trying to be critical. You will of course make your own choices in these matters.

Means nothing. Happens more often than overturns in IR football, etc.

Deej, give me a break here. :eek:

Did you visit the website? Your descriptivist tosh doesn't hold up.

This type of criticism, in my opinion, is unfounded. Everybody watching the game knew exactly what Joe Buck was talking about when he used the term "foul tip."

It just so happens, from an umpire's perspective, the term "foul tip" has a certain, important, meaning.

I'm quite certain that Joe Buck understands the "rule."

If you think about it, the very term "foul tip" is a horrible description from what we, as umpires, understand it to be. Why use the word "foul" when the ball is not foul? It's a bad term that leads to some minor misuses.

Big deal.

I don't think any less of Joe Buck as a result - and neither should you or the viewers.

I knew what he meant - and so did you.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I get lots of blank stares when I tell people, "Don't worry; time heals all wounds. You'll be feeling goodly again before you know it!"

Most people I know don't use "impact" when they mean "affect"; they use "effect".

Grey, I don't think it's fortuitous that you help us with these questions, although I do think we're fortunate.

Hell, I'm ecstatic when someone writes that they were "losing" in the last inning instead of...well, you know.

Perhaps one day usage standards will be again be encouraged--perhaps even required. You may think I say that hopefully, but the truth is I could care less irregardless. ;)

Really? I'm not quite certain. Joe Buck (AKA Dumb) and his partner (AKA Dumber) have shown time and again that they don't understand a great many of the rules.

It is a big deal. There are other ways to state it, such as "foul ball."

You're right. I coudn't think any less of Joe Buck than I already do. His father was a great announcer. There is not much resemblence.

You and I and the other umpires around the world knew, but some fans will think that it is a foul tip when the catcher drops the sharp, direct foul. Some of these same fans will be screaming at their local umpires as a result. That's what makes it unacceptable.

Website? Tosh? Tish-tosh!

Please. I don't use websites when I want to look in a book.

I get lots of blank stares when I tell people, "Don't worry; time heals all wounds. You'll be feeling goodly again before you know it!"

Most people I know don't use "impact" when they mean "affect"; they use "effect".

Grey, I don't think it's fortuitous that you help us with these questions, although I do think we're fortunate.

Hell, I'm ecstatic when someone writes that they were "losing" in the last inning instead of...well, you know.

Perhaps one day usage standards will be again be encouraged--perhaps even required. You may think I say that hopefully, but the truth is I could care less irregardless.

Gold star, Publius!

:eek:
Steve, bad hair night? :)

Step back for a minute, read this post of yours. It is much to do about so little of importance. Joe Buck is not gainfully employed to educate, he is a performer. Television spectators do not slip into their easy chairs to watch a World Series ballgame for academic purposes. If you watch professional baseball on television with scrupulous attention to sportscasting detail, you have missed the elephants watching the ants go by.

As umpires, I would firmly suggest that we make higher quality representations of ourselves. We might best serve officiating and the game not by extended, microscopic criticism of broadcast performers but by acknowledging their mistakes with tolerance for their first job requirement.

Entertainment.

Would you (we) not have more influence if your tone is less sharp and the subject less mauled? I believe so.



Surely, a pointed but understated comment would do more than

It's true that the announcers are entertainers first and rules experts probably last. Many of the announcers are living proof (if any proof were needed) that in general players know little more than the average fan—maybe.

If MLB thought that hiring Britney Spears to announce the games would increase the TV audience, they'd put her behind the microphone. (I admit I'm assuming that Ms. Spears is not a rules expert. Maybe she is. And if they ever did hire her, I suspect they would insist that her wardrobe be . . . uh . . . "complete" for on-field interviews after the game.)

But as umpires we have to live with the nonsense spouted back to us by the coaches who get their "expertise" from watching TV. When an announcer says (as I heard three years ago), "As long as the batter is in the running lane, that fielder [with the ball] must stay out of his way, or it's interference," we live with the consequences. Further, while I don't really expect the announcers to know all the fine points, they ought to know the difference between interference and obstruction, and they ought to know what to call a foul tip.

And why isn't that term renamed, anyway? How many times have we had to explain to a coach that a foul tip is not a foul ball? How about a "bat tip" or something else that doesn't have "foul" in it?

--tipped strike--

Apparently your negative assessment of their commentating abilities has completely eluded the networks since Joe Buck and Tim McCarver do an incredible amount of broadcasting. You should know that networks only care about one thing - RATINGS.

Believe me, if the networks thought, for one second, that they would be losing viewers simply because of their selection of announcers - they would have different announcers.

The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. Personally, I think they do a pretty good job even though they may not know the rulebook as well as most of us. Substantively, it does not take away from their body of work.

I dare say that we (as umpires) know even less about how to succeed as a sports commentator.

We are not the "typical" fan when watching a game.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I highly doubt the network's announcers will have any real impact upon the ratings.

So it's an established fact that most people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? Hmmmmm, my research shows otherwise. Like I said, just Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot" and check out the many websites that contain those very words. Actually, many people, not just me, do not like them.

Slamalamadingdong

I highly doubt you're right.

Google is "researching" a skewed set, Steve; let me think about this.

Steve v.s. the Marketing Professional of the Networks. Hmmm.

Tough one. :D


I have to hand it to you, when you go it out for someone like McCarver, hungry, rabid, dog-bone, etc.

Dennis Miller, participating on the Monday Night Football crew, had a negative impact.

If PeeWee Herman was announcing, I think they'd lose viewers.

I know fans who hate certain announcers so much, they turn the volume of the TV all the way down and listen to a radio announcer.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

--tipped strike--

Yeah! I like that one.

Like a car wreck, he would peak ratings for a few minutes...before the public began turning away. ;)

I rather liked the usually unbearable Miller on MNF. He was a hoot.

Paul Ruebens would make a great color commentator when compared side-by-side with Tim McCarver. Or Jim Palmer. Or Joe Morgan. Or Harold Reynolds. Or Orel Herscheiser.

Oh, I'm right all right. The average fan doesn't care much about who announces or commentates. However, using an extreme like Pee Wee Herman's a different story.

I suggest that we abandon the effort to coorect eveyone and accept that a ball tipped by the bat that goes backwards and is NOT caught by the catcher should now be called a FOUL TIP. That would be the easiest thing because everyone calls it a foul tip anyway. It makes sense because it is "foul" and it is a "tip."

Then we should create a new term to describe what we used to call a "foul tip." I suggest the new term be called a LIVE TIP. That term works because the it is a live ball that was tipped, and not using the word "foul" removes the confusion that the ball is, or is not, live.

Okay, then we follow that pattern and everytime an announcer or anyone else, for that matter, can't use proper terminologly, we make up new ones so they won't be mistaken.

Sheeeeeesh.

And I thought "no child left behind" was a disaster.

People, there is nothing wrong with a little education and expecting those who make a living broadcasting sports to understand and use the proper vocabulary.

The trend for the world to change because a couple of idiots can't seem to learn should not do to baseball what it has done to high school.

I have never had to clear up anything that an announcer has said on a broadcast to my knowledge. Fans are usually in the dark when it comes to the rules and more than likely don't remember what they heard anyway.

So, come down off the ledge. If I had those two idiots money, I'd throw yours away.

BTW Professor-You misspelled a couple of words. Every time is two words, not one. Also, the word terminology, the very subject we're supposed to be discussing.

Okay, then we follow that pattern and everytime an announcer or anyone else, for that matter, can't use proper terminologly, we make up new ones so they won't be mistaken.

You're right, GarthB. Let's not do that. Instead, let's make a thorough understanding of what constitutes a foul tip a requirement for graduation from high school. And what would be more useful and important to know in life anyway, the definition of a foul tip or all that dumbed-down feel-good p.c. bull? And the concept of a foul tip, with all the circumstances that qualify a play as a foul tip or not, would be more cognitively challenging, too. The kids would learn the OBR definition in high school. In college, they would study the differences in the various codes, including softball. Graduate schools could teach the history of the foul tip, its psychosocial foundations, how Freud interpreted it, etc.

Now who would you rather have dinner with, somebody with a graduate degree in the foul tip, or a Ph.D. in how toothpaste ads oppress women?

I'm not surprised the Steven Tyler can't read for comprehension, but I'm amazed at your reaction.

Oh, well, I failed to heed the words of the master. To paraphrase: No one ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American public.

In case my post was so unclear that others can't understand it, I am simply making the point that it makes no sense to change the rule book every time some goober can't use a term correctly.

You forgot Joe Buck, Jr. :D

I'm amazed at your reaction.

I understood your post and didn't really disagree with it. I just took it to run with something I thought might be entertaining. I was not being sarcastic (toward your post).

Actually, I liked him, too. But that's probably because I liked him as a regular comedian. Nonetheless, Dennis Miller is an acquired tasted. He's not for everybody. Consequently, it didn't surprise me too much that his career as a MNF commentator was short-lived. Ratings-wise, you have to appeal to a very wide audience.

Hell, maybe you're right! For all I know Paul Reubens may be very knowledgeable and insightful with regards to baseball.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Hersh almost rehired him after Bennie fired him.

Denny was fun when he was smashed at 0300 and would throw on the lights to show us his "slip pitch"; He once called Tim (not Haag) " a stupid loser who had to pay (Carlton) to stay in the bigs." I often wished I had inquired further.

Once upon a time, Howard Cosell was both the "most liked" and "most disliked" announcer.

I do find it surprising that anyone takes it so seriously. :shrug:

Cosell was also "most watched".