![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
These are the places to "over think" things. If not here - then where? Discussions between umpires on technical matters are often academic for the purposes of understanding nuances and rare interpretations. That's why one of the STUPIDEST things an umpire can say in an internet discussion of a rule between umpires is "That would never happen in a game" or "I've never seen that happen in my life". That is code for "I really don't understand the details of the rule." Find something else to concern yourself with other than how much I type or how many pages a thread takes up. What - are you printing them out and wasting ink on your printer? Besides, it's nothing to me since I can type like the wind. Shall I use simpler words for you? I would say that your posting in this forum FAR exceeds my own - by orders of magnitude - and I could care less. Type away for all I care! That's the beauty of the internet - you can participate or not participate to whatever extent you desire. But to complain about it is the height of immaturity. In fact, your first contribution to this thread may have been the most pointless post of them all. |
|
|||
Quote:
"Over thinking" is rarely, if ever, a good thing, no matter where it is done. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
You can't be guilty of wasting people's time here. Because they don't have to be here. They can pick which threads to read and not to read. They can create their own topics. Complaining about wasting people's time in an internet forum is just plain idiotic! Besides, I disagree with your characterization that this discussion is some esoteric, never-can-happen, not important topic - as evidenced by the conflicting views/interpretations on something that is not all that unusual, in my opinion. Nobody is picking nits here. It's a discussion of "intent" and interpretation of "intent" on a rule that REQUIRES a determination of "intent". BTW, I don't need nor care for people to come to my defense. The fact that you even have to mention that speaks volumes of the tone of this forum. |
|
|||
Quote:
When you post anything on the internet, you will get comments from time to time that are not to your liking. Now you can either get used to that, or go somewhere else too. Now I do not feel you are really wasting my time, but I felt your issue was silly and kind of juvenile. Just an opinion, I am sure you are a great guy but not sure why you are splitting hairs over words on what is once again, a rare situation that will not happen to most of us anytime soon. Quote:
I guess at the end of the day I am just wondering why you do not trust your own judgment and call it how you see it. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over. If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine. The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.
I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white. ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Pax
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
I had this situation last night at a LL match:
A batter's swing hits the ball up and towards first base. It bounces two feet inside fair territory about 30 feet down first base line. The spin carries it sharply towards foul territory, where it deflected off the batter-runner's right shin, which was about even with the running lane line (at least two feet in foul territory). I immediately call foul ball. Defense's coach wants me to call the batter out. I refuse stating contact was made in foul territory. I reset, and continue play with the foul ball call. My partner, who has played since his childhood, called for decades and is old as the mountains, showed no reservations about my call. Do the other members here feel that the case described above is a foul ball, an out, or something else? |
|
|||
Hmmm... wondering if that'll work... I doubt it, but I'll try... here goes:I'm not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
jchamp,
From the LL 2008 RIM: 6.05 -- A batter is out when - (h) after hitting or bunting a foul ball, that runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance; INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS: ⇒ Notice that intent only applies to a batted ball in foul territory. If the batter unintentionally deflects a foul ball, he/she is not out, but the ball is dead (foul ball). Presumably you judged that the contact was not intentional. Clearly it is a foul ball. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pitcher accidentally drops ball (FED) | David Emerling | Baseball | 14 | Mon Mar 05, 2012 09:47am |
Batter kicks d3k | bisonpitcher | Baseball | 26 | Fri Apr 24, 2009 08:14am |
batter kicks the ball out of play | _Bruno_ | Baseball | 33 | Sat Sep 22, 2007 06:00pm |
Batter Kicks Fair Ball in Batters Box | bwbuddy | Baseball | 27 | Mon Apr 23, 2007 06:49pm |
Dropped third strike, batter-runner kicks the ball | Gre144 | Baseball | 9 | Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:28am |