|
|||
According to OBR, yes it has scored:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
I am admittedly having trouble following your argument. I apologize if I am misstating it. You provided examples that show the defense can appeal infractions by the batter after three outs (BOO and illegal bat). You've shown that the rules provide that, for a game ending situation in which the home team takes the lead in their final at bat, the batter (and other forced runners their advance--Merkle) must touch first base. What I don't understand is WHY do you want the batter to continue to first base after three outs? Why do you find it appropriate to extrapolate the game ending criteria to three outs? Not that I want to discourage the defense from appealing after three outs an infraction that occurred prior to three outs, why do you want to encourage play, by the offense and defense, after three outs? You didn't like 5.07? |
|
|||
No one besides me seems interested in humoring you and now I'm really finding this a waste of time.
Instead of being vague and full of rhetoric with your argument for the last three pages, would you please tell me what specifically, in the entire rule 6, it is that you feel the Wendelstedt interpretation contradicts and would keep the B/R in jeopardy for not touching first base after three outs have been made? |
|
|||
First you said you enjoyed it. You must have edited that out. Where's the Gilligan's Island argument. Why do you keep editing?
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
So I have to humor you but you won't humor me? Which part of rule 6 again? For crying out loud. Fine. I'm in the middle of a long email to Professor. I'll cut and paste and get back to you. I already said, I can't follow your logic, but I'm trying. Maybe you could help me out, or are you the troll, just trying to get a rise and being vague and not answering one freaking direct question you are asked?
|
|
|||
Quote:
You're losing interest? That was rich. We're only on page 3 in my browser, but I'll keep trying Ringo, and I'll get back to you. Never mind, I just perused 6.04 to 6.09. Really, all that, that's your argument? I'm done with you. |
|
|||
Quote:
There is no rule that allows an appeal in this case.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?" |
|
|||
I thought this horse died on Friday.
This is absurd. Once the 3rd out of the inning is made, no other action by the offense matters. None. No other action by the defense matters except as described by the rulebook - which includes ONLY an appeal of a transgression done by the offense BEFORE that 3rd out was made. After the 3rd out - whether batter-runner eventually reaches first base or not is entirely immaterial. No 4th out is available here EXCEPT on an appeal. In fact, SA, if your logic holds any water, then even if BR DOES continue to first after the 3rd out is made, it does not matter - the play was over and BR was not at 1st when the 3rd out was made. THERE IS NO RULE that allows further play to be made regarding action that happens after the 3rd out --- to reiterate, the ONLY thing the defense can do is appeal regarding something that happened BEFORE that 3rd out was made.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
You don't like Wendelstedt in conjunction with 7.10(d) and it is you who is trying to make up up the rule to allow this appeal. You don't like it and for whatever reason it's not logical to you (oh, I asked for your logic). Funny that Carl Childress was mentioned earlier. He used to say to people who didn't think the rules were fair and wouldn't accept them, "What's fair about four balls and only three strikes?" Someone, please help me get SAump out of my head. |
|
|||
Whoa! That was my brain-child, pages ago , but nobody confirmed or denied it.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|