A bit of a facetious point on the new FED appeal rule

[Patrick Szalapski]

FED 8-2 PEN: "This dead ball appeal may be made by a coach or any defensive player with or without the ball by verbally stating that the runner missed the base or left the base too soon."

Is the National Federation then discriminating against mute or speech disordered players and coaches? I can see it now: "What? You want to appeal? Well, what do you want to appeal? Huh? Tell me, coach? There? Who? What? Spit it out, coach!" How cruel!

P-Sz

[jicecone]

Kind of reaching their Pat, you think.

Either way I cant believe the whole Appeal rule was thought out , planned and implemented in a timely manner. For the same reason I cant believe their is any intended discrimnation, this was hurriedly put in to the rule books. Just like last years rules involving handicapped players or coaches and umpires. ADA was'nt just invented yesterday.

And now the appeal rule is put in and published in the new books and low and behold at our first meeting, (Not the interpretation Meeting) we receive the "2002 Baseball Rules Interpretations Pre-Season Bulletin" and on page 3 is the following Note:

In all the a fore mentioned situations, or any play listed in the 2002 NFSH Baseball Casebook which deals with the umpire calling a runner out at the end of playing action, has been revised to indicate that unless the defense makes a valid appeal the umpire will ignore the base running infraction. An umpire is not to get involved unless a valid appeal is requested.

Just a small note in passing!!!!!!

I realalize a lot of coordination and time goes into to this but it seems that in these two situations somebody dropped the ball.

Discrimination? Certainly not on purpose. But Im just one opinion

[GarthB]

Pat:

Judging by the underwhelming response to this thread, I'm not the only one disappointed that you've chosen this post to announce your return to the boards. Do you really have a question?

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 3rd, 2002 at 01:51 PM]

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by GarthB
Pat:

Judging by the underwhelming response to this thread, I'm not the only one disappointed that you've broken you've chosen this post to announce your return to the boards.

I apologize if I don't meet your posting standards, Mr. Bentham. Anyway, I look forward to learning more from you and the others here.

P-Sz

[GarthB]

Actually, it's Benham. Not a "t" to be found.

No, it's not my standards you should be meeting; it's yours. You are better than this.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
Actually, it's Benham. Not a "t" to be found.

No, it's not my standards you should be meeting; it's yours. You are better than this.

Garth:

P-szzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is confusing you with the famous English philosopher, who holds, along with Mr. Spock, that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few — or the one.

Naturally, as a yellow dog Democrat, I agree with your accidental namesake, and Captain Kirk's science officer.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Mr. Benham, I apologize for the extra letter typo, and I shall no longer attempt small bits of humor on the umpire board.

Oh, Mr. Childress, Spock was reunited to the crew of the late starship Enterprise because of the ideology that the needs of the one can indeed outweigh the needs of the many. Leonard Nimoy, however, returned because of the money and opportunity to direct what later was often thought of as the best Trek film ever, The Voyage Home.

But that's another list. If interested, join http://www.vyger.net/trek/ and we'll chat there.

Besides, I'll take Kristol over Bentham, please.

P-Sz

[Edited by Patrick Szalapski on Mar 3rd, 2002 at 11:50 PM]