The thought the entire rage against the machine thing was a joke until I saw that he gathered unto himself a follower. How sad...............


Tim.

A true story?
 

The ODH didn't mean to handle throw w/ a bat, kick or push the ball out-of-play, or stop the defense from playing on R1. It was all a huge misunderstanding on the part of the defense and their fans.
That same excuse worked for Reggie Jackson {7.08b}. I fell asleep at the double-switch.

The umps can't be wrong here.
More interesting discussion: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n12415302/

The humanity of it all. It looks like the site is going to have to be taken down just to stop this nonsense. These are getting old. Can we please move on?

Get over it already. Seeing these are getting old and the posts keep getting modified to grow to even dumber heights. Time to close another thread.

A good call, strike
 

Tim, I may be comparing apples to oranges, inside the coach's box to outside the CB, inside the on deck circle to outside the ODC, play at HP to no play at HP, intentional to unintentional interference by the ODH, legal participant to illegal participant; and I may be wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in asking for a caseplay or authoritative opinion supporting the on-deck-hitters "legal" actions, aka involvement in a play. What I do know is the Wendelstedt ruling was posted and discussion came to an abrupt end. I have no qualms with ODH actions up to the point of ODH's obligation to avoid contact with a throw {JEA}. This is where Pete Booth and others disagree. Again, I may be wrong but it is my opinion that Pete Booth stated it was interference by the ODH and he did not respond to any comments about a bad throw protecting the ODH's legal status on the field.
-------------------
Situation 2. R1 and R3, less than two outs, both runners are attempting to steal (R3 on a safety squeeze and R1 on a straight steal). The batter squares around on a safety squeeze but removes his bat from over the plate and makes no attempt to bunt the ball. As the batter is pulling his bat back, the bat contacts the catcher's glove causing the catcher to miss the pitch with the ball rolling away from the catcher. Interpretation: The batter has lost his protection since he was no longer attempting to bunt the ball. Now, the catcher is protected and interference should be called. R3, the runner nearest homeplate is declared out (7-11f, (1), R1 is returned to 1B and the pitch is called a ball or strike on the batter. If there are two strikes on the batter, the batter is also out. If the batter has a three-ball count and the pitch is judged as ball four, the batter is awarded first base and R1 is moved to second. R3 is still out.
-------------------------------------------
The intent of the batter is just something for you to ponder.

Dear Bob Jenkins,

Please lock this thread.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Everyone on this forum except SAUmp and SLAS.

No really BOB, I have NEVER asked before.

PA LEASE lock it now

See sig.

Wow, threads are falling left and right, but yet this piece of crap is still wide open!

It had died a nice, quiet death on its own until someone decided to resurrect it for no good reason and someone else responded for no good reason.