Now I think I've heard everything

Sal Giaco

That wasn't an insult - Actually, great lawyers have a knack for getting people to talk more than they probably should while on the stand. Somebody once told me about that analogy and it has always stuck with me. Whenever i see Skip coming out of the dugout towards me, I always tell myself... here comes Johnny Cochran - keep your mouth shut and just answer the questions 😉

cbfoulds

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
That wasn't an insult - Actually, great lawyers have a knack for getting people to talk more than they probably should while on the stand. Somebody once told me about that analogy and it has always stuck with me. Whenever i see Skip coming out of the dugout towards me, I always tell myself... here comes Johnny Cochran - keep your mouth shut and just answer the questions 😉

Always good advice 😉
But equating lawyers with coaches ... them's fighting words. 😀

cowbyfan1

yeah we should equate both of them into something else, like fish food.

and I agree on the announcers "interpetations" some of them prove daily that they may have been able to hit a ball but still have no clue about the game itself.

ozzy6900

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Originally posted by Sal Giaco

Coaches are like lawyers, ...

HEY! Enough with the insulting us lawyers!!!
I resemble that remark!

NOW I know why you are like you are! 😀 😀 😀

Rich

Originally posted by Sal Giaco

Originally posted by umpduck11

He then informs me that the defender had no right to block the basepath,saying the tag could be made from the side.I let him know defender had ever right to his position,as he was in control of the ball and was making a play on the runner.
Coach the tells me all I'm doing is allowing a potential catastrophe on the field,to which I explain malicious contact to coach.Coach looks at me,shaking his head as if I'm daft........

I think you did a great job when you told him the fielder had a right to be there because he had the ball and was making a play.

However, I'm not sure why you explained malicious contact to him. Just because a coach comes up with a dumb statement like a "potential catastrophe" could occur - disregard that statement and stick to what you said the first time.

Coaches are like lawyers, they keep bringing stuff up in hopes that you'll stumble on something. I think you stumped him with your first explanation so he then tried another/different angle (although he was reaching pretty far with that catastrophe statement).

My point is "LESS IS MORE".... meaning, the less you say, the better it is. Remember, "silence can never be misquoted". My response to his ignorant remark... "Coach, I understand what you're saying, but as I said, the fielder had possession of the ball, therefore there was no obstruction when he applied the tag".

By the way, it's early in the year - I'm sure you'll hear worse statements as the season goes on. Have a good year

"The fielder can always be in the basepath with the ball."

After that, give silence that can't be argued with. Then when the coach repeats himself, walk away.

mikebran

Originally posted by umpduck11

Second game of varsity doubleheader,Fed rules..

...Oh wait, it was the SECOND game of a doubleheader? Never mind then, I was going to say something really REALLY intelligent, but it would sound Stoopid now because it would only be appropriate if this was the FIRST game of a doubleheader, because everybody knows that the rules are different between games of a doubleheader....

umpduck11

Huh??? Is it a problem that I mentioned the fact
that it was the SECOND game? Did I imply that changes
the rules?

jumpmaster

Originally posted by mikebran

Originally posted by umpduck11

Second game of varsity doubleheader,Fed rules..

...Oh wait, it was the SECOND game of a doubleheader? Never mind then, I was going to say something really REALLY intelligent, but it would sound Stoopid now because it would only be appropriate if this was the FIRST game of a doubleheader, because everybody knows that the rules are different between games of a doubleheader....

Mike - step away from the coffee.

Lighten up man. If you are going to jump in someones stuff, do it about something that matters, not about someone including irrelevant information in a sitch. If jump on someone evertime they include useless information, you are going to get tired in a hurry. Besides, didn't you learn to ignore useless information in school? I did, and I graduated from a public school in Arkansas.

Tim C

Contrary to the preponderence of my posts I follow the "Tony Peters" rules of discussion on the field:

Make every explanation in FIVE WORDS or less:

"He was making a play."

Turn with a little chuckle.

Rats, don't you love'em?

Largo20

Sorry for the late reply on this one.
Is it obstruction if runner and catcher collide at homeplate during a bang-bang play?
In this case, the man behind the dish would have a lot easier call to make.
That´s obstruction - Time - You: Home.

Rich

Originally posted by Largo20
Sorry for the late reply on this one.
Is it obstruction if runner and catcher collide at homeplate during a bang-bang play?
In this case, the man behind the dish would have a lot easier call to make.
That´s obstruction - Time - You: Home.

Obstruction? The fielder had the ball. Besides, if this is a FED game, the fielder only needs to be making an imminent play on the ball, not actually have the ball.

The original play, as written, couldn't POSSIBLY be obstruction -- the fielder had the ball and can block anything he darn well pleases.

DownTownTonyBrown

are like announcers?
😉

There's certainly some analogous logic in there somewhere!

Largo20

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
The original play, as written, couldn't POSSIBLY be obstruction -- the fielder had the ball and can block anything he darn well pleases. [/B]

I was pretty much aware of this. I just wanted to be sarcastic.

mcrowder

Throw in a little smiley when you're sarcastic - I took you seriously too.