Wendelstedts clear it up

[SanDiegoSteve]

SLAS,

You are now in denial mode, just like your twin brother, SAUmp.

This is what the Wendelstedts said, as you just posted:

"Because it seems apparent in your situation that the fielder was not, nor could be, in position to field the ball, there is no interference. Since it was not
done intentionally, the ball is alive and in play."

This means that they disagree with you, and that the umpires that day were wrong.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

SLAS,

You are now in denial mode, just like your twin brother, SAUmp.

This is what the Wendelstedts said, as you just posted:

"Because it seems apparent in your situation that the fielder was not, nor could be, in position to field the ball, there is no interference. Since it was not
done intentionally, the ball is alive and in play."

This means that they disagree with you, and that the umpires that day were wrong.

Pretty bad when you type up that long of a post and then contradict yourself at the same time.

[jicecone]

"When the rules say's you gotta do something and you don't, you did it intentionally."

No, the rules did define intentional interferenece quite clearly for everyone however, a few, clearly decided to ignor them and create their own definition.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Pretty bad when you type up that long of a post and then contradict yourself at the same time.

If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.

He was referring to the long post by SLAS, not to me, but thanks anyway!

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

He was referring to the long post by SLAS, not to me, but thanks anyway!

Yes, I was talking about SLAS, not Steve.

[jdmara]

Is this ever going to die?

-Josh