About the 234 known OBR errors

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Ad hominem attacks such as calling someone a "troll" or a "phony" do not constitute a valid "argument".

1. My comments are legitimate and relative...not "Ad hominem" in any regard.

2. I am not engaging in an argument, rather I was making a suggestion to Tim C.

3. I would never argue with you. I don't argue with trolls or phonies. They are always right.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

1. My comments are legitimate and relative...not "Ad hominem" in any regard.

2. I am not engaging in an argument, rather I was making a suggestion to Tim C.

3. I would never argue with you. I don't argue with trolls or phonies. They are always right.

Define troll or phony since you always profess to know everything.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Define troll or phony since you always profess to know everything.

One who acts like Steven Tyler.

Oh yeah, that probably defines ad hominem, too.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

One who acts like Steven Tyler.

Oh yeah, that probably defines ad hominem, too.

OUCH!

FWIW. I'd rather be a troll or phony as I deem it several rungs above hypocrite. It's a rather boring read when most of the posts are of the cyberbulling, guttersniping variety. Placing blame at the feet of one person only encourages the privileged few to feel a sense of immunity.

I don't visit here very often since I'm now the primary caretaker for my elderly parents. I also recently donated a kidney to my younger sister so she can hopefully add a few more quality years to her life. Ad hominemly speaking, just your average day in the life of a phony troll.

[DBull]

"I can't really see what "scrambling back to a (forced) bag has to do with it."

"B is the correct answer as R1 acquired 2B when he slid past it, therefore removing the force at 2B. It can't be an appeal for a missed base as the base was not tagged; F6 tagged R1 not the base. Since R1 acquired 2B and R3 scored before the third out was made, the run counts. "

It is called continuous action by J/R. Most umpires understand this situation very well.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DBull

"I can't really see what "scrambling back to a (forced) bag has to do with it."

"B is the correct answer as R1 acquired 2B when he slid past it, therefore removing the force at 2B. It can't be an appeal for a missed base as the base was not tagged; F6 tagged R1 not the base. Since R1 acquired 2B and R3 scored before the third out was made, the run counts. "

It is called continuous action by J/R. Most umpires understand this situation very well.

I think you might be referring to J/R's concept of 'unrelaxed action'.

Although many umpires embrace the concept of unrelaxed action, from what I understand at least one of the pro schools does not. They teach that a runner can be appealed for a missed base even when he's scrambling back to it, using the strict language of 7.10(b) as justification.

I was merely trying to explain to the obtuse "Larry" what the difference was between appealing a runner scrambling back to a base and appealing a runner with a "clean miss" advancing to the next base. I agree that J/R had already explained that.

For my part, I like the idea of unrelaxed action: IMO, a missed base appeal should occur after playing action has ended, not when a runner is 4 feet away and scrambling to get to the "missed" base. I admit that the rules provide scant support for this opinion: it just seems to me to be better baseball.

In actual play, I probably just wouldn't "hear" an appeal during unrelaxed action.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think you might be referring to J/R's concept of 'unrelaxed action'.

Although many umpires embrace the concept of unrelaxed action, from what I understand at least one of the pro schools does not. They teach that a runner can be appealed for a missed base even when he's scrambling back to it, using the strict language of 7.10(b) as justification.

I was merely trying to explain to the obtuse "Larry" what the difference was between appealing a runner scrambling back to a base and appealing a runner with a "clean miss" advancing to the next base. I agree that J/R had already explained that.

For my part, I like the idea of unrelaxed action: IMO, a missed base appeal should occur after playing action has ended, not when a runner is 4 feet away and scrambling to get to the "missed" base. I admit that the rules provide scant support for this opinion: it just seems to me to be better baseball.

In actual play, I probably just wouldn't "hear" an appeal during unrelaxed action.

What if R1 slide past (not touching) the base as F4 bobbled the throw. R1 gets up and tries for third where he's tagged out. Do you now allow an appeal that he missed second? How (or why) is that different from the OP?

(And, to Larry -- this has all been discussed many times before with some taking one side and some the other and no, to my knowledge "official" ruling. J/R, and all other "authoritative opinion" has been wrong before.)

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think you might be referring to J/R's concept of 'unrelaxed action'.

I was merely trying to explain to the obtuse "Larry" what the difference was between appealing a runner scrambling back to a base and appealing a runner with a "clean miss" advancing to the next base. I agree that J/R had already explained that.

For my part, I like the idea of unrelaxed action: IMO, a missed base appeal should occur after playing action has ended, not when a runner is 4 feet away and scrambling to get to the "missed" base. I admit that the rules provide scant support for this opinion: it just seems to me to be better baseball.

In actual play, I probably just wouldn't "hear" an appeal during unrelaxed action.

But would you allow an appeal when the action was "relaxed" as was the situation in the J/R case to acknowledge a (forced) fourth out that would by rule negate the run?