1. The Knickerbocker, or Cartwright, Rules were not the first rules of baseball. They are most likely in part a codification of what was oral tradition rather than a total creation of one man, a committee or a club.

2. There are records of organized baseball being played in New York in the 1820's, 25 years prior to the Knickerbocker Rules.

3. A record of written rules for Base - Ball, exists from the 18th century.

How many hours, days, weeks have you spent researching notes, papers, articles, books, letters in the museurm archives in New York, Washington and Boston? How many organizations turn to you for orginal interpretations and suggested modern enforcement?



(Almost to page 9)

Cheater! :rolleyes:

JM

I was being kind to suggest you only show your vast knowledge of original intent relative to the codification of 1845.
If you want to produce research that shows intent of rules from the 18th century then have at it.
My suggestion would be to stick to what you can prove, which thru 8 pages has been nothing

Einstien wasn't born yet, Hegel's work had not yet gained prominence in the states and Evans though his birth and his baseball superiority had long been foretold and awaited, the blessed event had not yet taken place.
So as I said in a previous post Alex and his buddies just didn't know that ties were impossible. So the theory still holds up.
I'm awaiting the smoking gun from Garth so I can blow up my theory and join the Evans Faithful

You agree that the current interpretation is different from what you claim is the original intent of the rules. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that the interpretation has changed over the years, not on everyone else to prove that it did NOT change.

Please note that it is not sufficient to claim that the interpretation MIGHT have been different, which is entirely consistent with the fact that it HAS NOT.

There's got to be something better to do than drivel on about this.

Safe, or out. Nothing else.

Is it 9 pages yet?

I'm at the end of page 3. Those that don't display 40 posts per page really ought to.

No, no -- then Garth would NEVER win his pool.

Garth, you might consider sharing your winnings with whoever posts first on p. 9.

Edited to add: heh heh.

I simply proposed a theory which is consistent with the current and original rules. It's all I did was propose a theory, never made any claims.
Most everyone else who responded however did make claims that I was wrong, including GB who said without a doubt he KNEW the original intent and I was wrong.
That's fine, theories are made to be disproven, but like any good educator I simply asked for backup on the claim. GB to date has failed miserably.
JM had a great post very insightful and he almost had me give up, but I regained my spirit and in my fight to keep my theory alive I debunked most of his argument:D
My perspective on this thread
Big steve brought up the tie issue.
He was insulted for bringing it up. Even though GB has lengthy discussions on the issue with his friends he has no tolerance for any one posting on the issue. hmmm
When I saw the lack of love for 56 I jumped in with my own newly formed theory, supporting my bro in blue as it were.
Then the world of intolerant umps ascended upon me.

In my world, if I'm asked a question by my wife, kids, customers, friend or whomever I respond with I think , I know or It's my opinion. If I'm challenged on an I know response I usually provide justification for my answer, what I don't do is start insulting people because they want verification to my claims.

Let's see if anyone see a difference in communiction skills between these two responses.
My theory original intent may be that they intended for TGTTR

A. GB response(paraphrased) You're wrong, I know the original intent you're wrong and you apparently have no business being an ump and have no feel for the game. You're wrong, I'm right.

Since he had zero confirmed research to back up such a claim may I suggest this approach.

B. I don't think TGTTR was ever an issue at any point of rules writing. I have many influential and learned friends who, after studying this issue have concluded as much. There's nothing in any research I've heard about to support your theory and the modern interpretation of the rule certainly does not support you.

I don't know how anyone can get along in life responding in A. fashion but it didn't influence me and since he couldn't back up the statement with anything but my friends told me so I think it made him look a bit foolish.

Anything along a B response would have ended my conversation with him on page 1.
Actually B is the way I was going to respond to Big Steve before the ascencion (sp) of intolerant umps came over him.

That's not quite correct. You made several claims including; "EVANS IS WRONG!'

Correct.

I would suggest that your emotional attachment to your position has blinded you. I have quoted respected and accepted sources. You have quoted a dictionary and simply repeated the question over and over and over. A wonderful technique.

One again, your are wrong.

Your lack of experience at this board got in your way. "BigSteve56 is a long time troll who many of us know. His moniker is a combination or BigUmp 56 and San Diego Steve. He posts primarily to stir things up and be a thorn in their sides. Their is no love for him by anyone who knows him.


The two pictures you draw are cartoonish: You are wonderful, innocent, absolutely correct in your thinking and never told anyone they were wrong., Gee, I wish I could be like you.

Again, I was the only one to quote recognized experts in the field. What's that saying....you can lead a horse to water....

In your case, you beat that poor horse to death with your endless repetition of the rule while, apparently, holding your hands over your ears (eyes?) and singing "la la la la la la la."


Add: "At no time in history was this rule interpreted in this fashion" and you've got a pretty good summary of what I've been telling you.

You don't seem to read very well,

Well, live and learn. I certainly have. I made a huge mistake early on. When you summarily dismissed the opinion of the only authoritative person brought up in this discussion...when you decided that you knew more than those who have spent years researching the evolution of rules...when you decided your understanding of a dictionary entry entitled you to declare that you were absolutely correct and everyone else was wrong, that's when I should have surrendered the bandwidth to you. It should have been obvious to me, as it was to most of the others, that you would refuse to ever see reality.

I apologize to all those whose warnings I did not heed.

But...9 pages!

How convenient for you. :D

Apology accepted, but did it really take 9 pages to realize what COUmp was really about? Everyone else saw it at least six pages ago.

You really need to get over your belief that everyone is salvageable. It just ain't so, and you should have learned that here a long time ago. Just think of your ignore list. That alone should tell you that some people just aren't willing to deal with the real world.

Anyone notice how almost every single thread revolves around Garth being right?

Yup, followed shortly with posts by three morons claiming that black is white.

And then that is followed shortly by the moron-in-training defending the three morons.

This thread is a good example, MIT.

Just make the call...
 

See the play, make the call. Out/safe? Who cares? Just make the call and live with it. One of the managers is going to be upset no matter what. Sheesh:D

I stand corrected I did make a claim.
Do you remember what I accused Evans of being wrong about?


I saw a quote from Evans saying something like ties were impossible. Other than that I saw no quotes from anyone Re: intent of the rule.
If I missed it I'm sorry.

And again I say. I simply posed a theory that you said you knew for certain was wrong. Just asking for verification.
You continue to say howmu

Do you know for certain that Alex and his buddies never sat around having a room temperature one discussing the previous days game.
"That first one joe hit sure was close at first" "yea , it looked like a tie to me" "yea me too" " I wonder why Gary called him out" " I thought about that too, aren't ties supposed to go to the runner Alex?" "Supposed too, I'll have to have a talk with ol Gar"
And there began the first conflict between ump and player.


1. Do you really expect me to draw a picture of myself any different?
You're doing a great job of balancing the painting

2. Again, I never said I was right or correct (except that Evans is wrong and ties are physically possible) I posed a theory. Theories aren't always right


Experts?

when you add the "s" it usually means more than 1. A dictionary might help you.
And that one expert didn't say anything about original intent.
So how exactly does that debunk my theory?

And i haven't la la laed anything except your insults still waiting for original intent info


You may be right but what have you got to substantiate your claim from the 19th century?

You comprehend much better than you let on
I dismissed one statement that Evans that you purport Evans said.
Ties are impossible
That's the only thing I said I disagreed

Earlier you said you brought many authorities on the subject to the discusssion. Now you say just one.
I agree it was just one. I'm sure you weren't just trying to make me look bad by lying earlier.
And by the way. The one authority you brought to the table said nothing about original intent. As I remember simply modern interpretation





"those" infers more than one
I'm confused

Show me one post that referred to original intent from a verifiable source.
ONe show me one.



WHOOOA
I just had one of those moments where everything just comes together


You're right I have been stubborn.
I'm feeling quite childish and it takes alot to make a child feel childish.

I have ignored your many many experts til now
You're right my theory is bogus. After careful consideration I'm sure those in the 18th century couldn't even comprehend a tie much less consider it.

And truth be known I'm sure there are lots of biographies, articles, diary entries and much more that speaks directly to intent in the 18th and 19th century and I'm just too ignorant to find it. You no doubt have already posted it and I've just refused to acknowledge it.
To think there was any evolution to our modern interpretation is just crazy,
come on I should have seen this pages ago evolution of interpretaion, the rule hasn't changed why should the interp have changed. Besides who believes in evolution anyway.

You're right ties are imposssible, and really even if they were who in their right mind would even think "tie". I mean only rats, spectators and players ever think about or mention tie and they had nothing to do with any rules

So I officially declare myself a loser, I mean the loser of this thread.

Followed by a moron who doesn't even belong here but lurks to cause trouble anyway.

Hehehehe
 

And I truly believe that "children should be seen and not heard."

Canada when you can shave we'll listen.

So far you are nothing more than an idiot. I will let your body of work speak for you.

Regards,

Methinks CO ump might be a worthy addition to your exclusive little club, MIT. He's showing all of the knowledge and reason that was heretofore typified only by your exalted Three Amigos.

I would advise that you make a statue of CO ump also. You can place it on your bedroom dresser beside your statues of Larry, Shep and Moe, and then you can worship all four of them at the same time. Pray that you'll be just like them when you grow up (you're well on the way).

Keep your hands above the covers though while you're worshiping them.:eek:

There are too many here that are of "shaving" age that still fall into the same boat that Canada does to suggest that age is the sole factor involved in this rage against the machine attitude, Tim. It's a good thing to think outside of the box and push the envelope of outrageousness from time to time. But to do it every time on everything is the real outrage.


Tim.

Re: Pile-on
 

Tim_C: Young adult is the correct term. I am 20 years old. And if you don't like me exposing the trolls, so be it. By the way, I do shave.

Regards,

Hey, Joe Besser. That's Shemp, not Shep you sick pervert.....:p

Not so haaaarrrddd!!!!

I assume you are exaggerating for effect rather than just lying.

Out of the 25 threads on the front index page here, Garth has allowed himself to get into arguments in two of them. I would agree that given who he has lowered himself to argue with, that's two too many. :D

I stand corrected.

Thank you, Shemp.

Well, thank goodnes it's baseball season again. This forum was a bit dull over the winter.

Balk Ball Not Dead !?
 

"Pitching
· The ball is always dead on a balk. FALSE in professional baseball and softball . . . "

Huh? Am I missing something here?

From OBR:

5.09 The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when—
. . .
(c) A balk is committed; runners advance; (See Penalty 8.05).

Seems to me that the ball *is* dead.

Softball is a different story. There is an "illegal pitch" which has its own set of rules.

Yes you are missing something. See Penalty 8.05

In FED, you would be correct but in NCAA and OBR, we allow play to finish, then call the ball dead (delayed dead ball). OBR changed from immediate dead to delayed in the mid 1950's.

From the MLBUM 7.9

7.9 CALLING "TIME" AFTER A BALK
The penalty for balk allows the play to proceed without reference to the balk if the batter and all
runners advance one base on the pitch following the balk (i.e., the actual pitch and/or action
caused by the batter hitting the ball). The umpire shall not call "Time" until play stops following
the balk. The question therefore arises as to when the umpire is to call "Time" to kill the ball
after calling a balk. The following cases should help explain when play is considered "stopped"
and a what moment the umpire should call "Time" following the call of balk:
(1) If the pitcher balks and does not throw the ball, call "That's a balk; Time!" and enforce the balk.
(2) If the balk is followed by a batted ball, leave the ball in play until it is apparent that the batterand all runners will not advance one base. At that moment, call "Time" and enforce the balk. If, however, the batter reaches first base and all runners advance at least one base on play following the balk, play proceeds without reference to the balk.

EXAMPLES:
(a) If a batted ball follows the balk and results in a fly ball that is caught, call "Time" the moment the fly ball is caught. Then enforce the balk.
(b) If a batted ball follows the balk and results in a ground-out on a previous runner at the base to which he would be entitled because of the balk, call "Time" the moment the out is made. Then enforce the balk.
(3) If the balk is followed by a pitch that is caught by the catcher, call "Time" the moment the catcher catches the ball. Then enforce the balk. (Note exception in ball four situations covered in item (5) below.)
(4) If the balk is followed by a pick-off throw to a base that is caught by a fielder, call "Time" the moment the fielder catches the ball. Then enforce the balk.
(5) If the balk is followed by ball four delivered to the batter and is caught by the catcher, call "Time" and enforce the balk unless all runners advance one base because of ball four. In that situation, play proceeds without reference to the balk.
(6) If the balk is followed by a pitch that strikes the batter, call "Time" the moment the pitch strikes the batter. Then enforce the balk unless the hit batter forces all other runners to advance one base, in which case play proceeds without reference to the balk.
(7) If the balk is followed by a wild throw to a base, the Approved Ruling of Official Baseball Rule 8.05 provides that the runner may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk. In that situation the umpire shall call the balk in the usual manner but shall not call "Time" until all play has ceased (runners have stopped trying to advance and a fielder is in possession of the ball in the infield).
(8) If the balk is followed by a wild pitch, the Approved Ruling of Official Baseball Rule 8.05 provides that the runner may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk. In that situation, the umpire shall call the balk in the usual manner but shall not call "Time" until all play has ceased (runners have stopped trying to advance and an fielder is in
possession of the ball in the infield).

Note that even if the runner advances to or beyond the base to which he is entitled because of a wild pitch following a balk, the balk is still "acknowledged." That is, the pitch is nullified and the batter will resume the at-bat with the count that existed when the balk occurred unless:
(a) The wild pitch was ball four on which all runners advanced one base; or
(b) The wild pitch was strike three on which the batter and all other runners advanced one base.
In both situations (a) and (b) above, play proceeds without reference to the balk, because all runners (including the batter-runner) advanced one base on the pitch following the balk.

There, that should cover it for you Smuelg and hopefully shut up the "want-to-be, know nothings" that are lurking about. Funny, I just proved Garth correct, didn't I there, lurkers?

The worst of the six stooges.

I always thought there were only three.

I counted about 5, with the last few pages of this thread being the best example. So yes, I did over-exaggerate.

There were six total:

http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/mhoward.jpg http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/lfine.jpg http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/choward.jpg http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/showard.jpg http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/jbesser.jpg http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/cderita.jpg

Personally, I though Joe DeRita was the worst.

Ricky, Julian and Bubbles are the next big thing.

Weren't those 6 the crew at last years LLWS?