No coaches on field?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mr. Rutledge, you have outdone yourself. Both Bob Jenkins and I have pointed out accurately they you misquoted a situation in your feeble attempt to appear justifed in your incorrect view.

And when caught, undeniably, misrerpresenting a written situation that is available for all to see, you respond with:



Had you any crediblity left, it is gone.

This is the baseball board and honestly I did not expect much of a serious conversation with this. Also unlike you I actually know Bob Jenkins and we do not agree on everything. Does not mean anything as most people I know do not agree on everything either. Also this is a discussion board, not a place I am trying to gain credibility. If it is, then I will stop officiating all together if I need that credibility here.

You continue with your opinions or lack of ability to see the bigger picture. I will not have to work with you so it really does not matter either way now does it?

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also unlike you I actually know Bob Jenkins and we do not agree on everything. Does not mean anything as most people I know do not agree on everything either.

Try reading this very slowly. This has NOTHING to do with agreeing with Bob Jenkins. What has been pointed out is that you misquoted, or misrepresented, or lied about how a situation was worded. It doesn't matter that it was Bob or me or Elmer Fudd who pointed this out.

This is not opinion. It is verifiable. Anyone can look up the situation and then read what you claimed it said (said, not meant) and it will be clear that you are wrong.

Be a man.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Try reading this very slowly. This has NOTHING to do with agreeing with Bob Jenkins. What has been pointed out is that you misquoted, or misrepresented, or lied about how a situation was worded. It doesn't matter that it was Bob or me or Elmer Fudd who pointed this out.

If it has nothing to do with Bob, why did you bring him up? Last time I checked I did not ask Bob’s opinion. Seriously, if you do not want something to be about something, you do not bring up the issue or person.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

This is not opinion. It is verifiable. Anyone can look up the situation and then read what you claimed it said (said, not meant) and it will be clear that you are wrong.

Be a man.

Try reading this slowly. I believe that the intent of the rule was to restrict actions above what the plays suggest. Now you do not have to believe that, but that is what I think and why I raised the issue. If you do not want to accept that, then keep talking about it over and over and over again here. But I stand by what I feel and feel this is no different than other rules where they wanted to take action on something, but did not make it clear across the board when and how this might be applied. Because all they had to do is create a play that said that the HC would not be restricted if they were thrown out. But all they did was create about 4 plays that said the same thing and made no distinction between what might be the penalty if there is a problem with the head coach. And the very reason this issue has come up more than once already and most people walk away debating.

And I knew I could not have this discussion with baseball umpires as usual. There were two rules brought up in football season this past year and those individuals dissected, debated, argued over the intent or the reasons for one very poorly written rule and another rule that was somewhat controversial. But hey, cannot do that here, maybe that is why many like yourself cannot handle a coach debating with you and throwing everyone out is a badge of honor. Keep up the good work.

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Oh, my God, yes, please lock it down. Looking inside of Rutledge's concept of logic is a frightening.

Rut: Situation X says this.
Bob: No it doesn't.
Rut: Let's just agree to disagree.
MU: No room for disagreement. It either says what you say or it doesn't and like Bob said, it doesn't.
Rut: I'm used to disagree with Bob.
MU: But you are denying the truth of what the situation says, not disagreeing with Bob.
Rut: Well if it's not about Bob, what is it about?
MU: Someone shoot me in the face, please.


My dear Mr. Rutledge...get some help. Thankfully, I've retired but I know of some colleagues in the Chicago area that could help you.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

My dear Mr. Rutledge...get some help. Thankfully, I've retired but I know of some colleagues in the Chicago area that could help you.

I used to bother about that. But the ignore list is just so much less stressful, you know?

[cviverito]

After reading through all of the points made under 3.3.1 (SITUATIONS A - RR) I think we can come to the following conclusions for the 2010 season:

1. HC's or AC's can be restricted or ejected, and that each occurrence must be judged on its own merit
2. The AC and HC are both restricted if the AC leaves his position to argue a judgment call
3. The intent of this ruling is to keep the AC's from arguing judgment calls
3. The purpose of this rule is to make the HC culpable for managing the actions of the AC's
4. None of the case plays for baseball suggest, directly or indirectly, that AC's are ever restricted after the HC is restricted and/or ejected

As for deciphering what or why the NFHS or state associations actually means to say in the writing of the new rules. I leave that to the 2011 clarifications. For now I will go with was was clearly written in the book, the pubs, and stated at the rules interpretations meeting. For what that is read points 1 - 4 above.

[mbyron]

Yawn. Lock 'er down, please.