Rules Myths Part 1

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

Definition of bondage Is this useful? Yes|NoThanks! Tell us more
A - slavery: the condition of being enslaved or forced into serfdom
B - physical restraint during sex: the practice of being tied up or restrained physically during sex acts
C - restriction: the condition of being controlled by something that limits freedom

Hasn't your oposition to "bondage" been your latest "mantra" on this website?
How many post and how long have you been talking about those mean people here who restict your freedom.
Your buddy, buddy are the only ones I know who have never tried to restrict your freedom on this website.
Any idea of the two references I am talking about?

Definition of mantra Is this useful? Yes|NoThanks! Tell us more
A - holy word in meditation: in Hindu and Buddhist religious practice, a sacred word, chant, or sound that is repeated during meditation to facilitate spiritual power and transformation of consciousness
B - often repeated expression or idea: an expression or idea that is repeated, often without thinking...

Now if you were so upset with the direction this website has taken, you could go away!
If not, then interpret post #8 through #39 that suggest a tie should go to the runner and provide a summary by Monday.

Don't try to psychanalyze me. I meant it as a joke, and if you want to search for examples of projection, well Freud is waaaaaaaaaaaay old school.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

I did see the humor in the comments, just thought the aim landed close to home.
I mistook your joke for a personal attack on me or an attack on this website because of me.
Now that you made your intentions perfectly clear. I apologize.
How is your homework or term paper(s) coming along?

No offence taken.

School is murder. I've heard 2nd year university is the filter year, so hopefully things get easier next year.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

This became a pretty funny thread.

PWL (Steven Tyler) comes on here in his "old" moniker of "BigSteve56" (remember he has used it before) and drags out even a worse troll.

"Evans is wrong!"

And now that CO Ump (urber troll) has ended the discussion.

I also am moving on today as this thread has become one against the world.

Regards,

If Evans says ties are impossible as GB insinuated then yes IMO Evans is wrong.
Curious no response to the main point of the post

One question

Is it impossible to have a tie?
and I'll bet neither you or GB give a straight yes or no answer which speaks volumes.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

This became a pretty funny thread.

PWL (Steven Tyler) comes on here in his "old" moniker of "BigSteve56" (remember he has used it before) and drags out even a worse troll.

"Evans is wrong!"

And now that CO Ump (urber troll) has ended the discussion.

I also am moving on today as this thread has become one against the world.

Regards,

Since you're a player at NFHS can you tell me if NFHS thinks a tie is impossible?
And also if the rules committee were posed with a theoretical situation where there was a tie at 1st. What would their interp be? Out or Safe

My guess is No and Safe.

If so, does that make them all urber trolls?
Just wonderin

[bob jenkins]

1) the OP is not the first person to discover this discrepancy between a "tie" on the BR and a "tie" with other runners. It's been discussed on-line since the day after Al Gore invented it (on the day Al Gore invented it, only porn was discussed).

2) All the rules codes (OBR, NCAA and FED) have the same "error."

3) So, my guess is that neither NCAA nor FED meant the rule to be different -- they just followed the OBR wording.

4) OBR has 234 (or some such number) "known errors" and this is one of them.

5) The general interp, regardless of the physics, is that the umpire determines which happened first and rules accordingly on all runners at all bases.

6) I agree that it's theoretically possible for the two separate events to happen at the same time. That theory, though, has no relevance to umpiring and no umpire worth his salt would rule one way on a "tie" at first and another way on a "tie" at second and certainly would NOT explain the ruling to the coaches that way.

[mbyron]

I agree with Bob, and hope that this thread has a pleasant retirement.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with Bob, and hope that this thread has a pleasant retirement.

Not me. Now I wanna know who the tie goes to in the porn that Bob was referring to.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Not me. Now I wanna know who the tie goes to in the porn that Bob was referring to.

Trouble maker.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with Bob, and hope that this thread has a pleasant retirement.

Let's not be so hasty. COump may have discovered something: a new game.

Form teams of two and go through the rules with a dictionary at hand and see how many rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

Every time one is found, the player shouts, "Theoretically my position is sound and I stand by it!"

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

The first to finish, slam down his bottle and exclaim "Evans is wrong!" is declared the winner.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The first to finish, slam down his bottle and exclaim "Evans is wrong!" is declared the winner.

Or we could play the Lemming game and all walk off the cliff together as we follow the master of physics himself.

Because if Evans has declared, as GB indicated, that ties are physically, statistically and just plain universally impossible then it must be so

[TwoBits]

I was excited to see over five pages of responses on the thread I started, but was less than so when I discovered 4 1/2 of those pages were regarding a physics discussion about the speed of light, sound, slavery and bondage, and whether two things can truely occur at the same time. The exact same discussion has started to occur on the softball board, too, albeit in a lesser scientific detail than the one here.

For those of you who did not hijack this thread, thanks for your responses and your constructive criticism. Moderators, you may lock this thread at your convenience.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Or we could play the Lemming game and all walk off the cliff together as we follow the master of physics himself.

Because if Evans has declared, as GB indicated, that ties are physically, statistically and just plain universally impossible then it must be so

In the words of my good friend Dave Hensley:

When it's you against the world, back the world.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Let's not be so hasty. COump may have discovered something: a new game.

Form teams of two and go through the rules with a dictionary at hand and see how many rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

Every time one is found, the player shouts, "Theoretically my position is sound and I stand by it!"

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

PBR? Let's at least give people a choice of Schafer, Stroh's, Iron City, Schlitz, or Schmidt's.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base;"

Here's the original knickerbocker rule from 1845.
Tell me what was intended. Please give some sort of backup that proves your assertion that Cartwright did not intend for Ties to go to the runner.
Please tell me why he worded it this way as opposed to "runner must beat the tag"
As an educator you know how important it is to back up claims and assertions with fact.
So please enlighten me