2013 World Series Thread

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

There is only one reason obstruction is ever called - the runner is hindered by a fielder who is neither in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding it.

PS~not completely true. As long as we're splitting hairs. Catchers on occasions obstruct batters who aren't runners.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

PS~not completely true. As long as we're splitting hairs. Catchers on occasions obstruct batters who aren't runners.

Only in Fedlandia is that true.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Only in Fedlandia is that true.

Wondering who would be the first one to pull that out of the holster.

Quite aware of that by definition......but the rule set wasn't brought up was it.

Next time somebody says, "Offense interferes, defense obstructs." we need to specify each, and every rule set.

I guess the next big thread will be which rule set has the phrase "travesty of the game", and how many times.

Maybe it should be a requirement that when discussing a play in FED rules we use their terms for placement of runners. Per example, R1 on third, and R2 on first.

Must nits have to be picked to get minutaie point across? I don't feel the need to use the word troll.........................

PS~I did say on some occasions which means not on all occasions. I'll try, and be more specific next time.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Must nits have to be picked to get minutaie point across? I don't feel the need to use the word troll.........................

That's really cute not only coming from you but also considering that the whole point of your post was to "split hairs" as you put it.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That's really cute not only coming from you but also considering that the whole point of your post was to "split hairs" as you put it.

Feel free to have the last word.

If you insist. Thanks for proving my point. Check and checkmate.....