Balderdash and baloney
 

[Lecture mode=on]

We seem to have gotten into a hypersensitive mode of late.

Maybe it is the recent intrusion of trolls, including the near troll who I have been intentionally (and with some difficutly since there are so many soft tosses he posts to pound back) ignoring, or maybe it is a cultural issue where American-speak doesn't translate well or NZ-speak is not read the same by Americans (or at least, in one case, by me), but whatever, lets grow thicker skin, shall we?

Little jabs here and there are not necessarily personal and not necessarily bad. I've had a few more-than-hints of sarcasm posted back at me a time or two.

Being personal is saying things like "you're an idiot."

Being sarcastic about a region's or an individual's rule interpretation is not "personal" unless your rule interpretation is who you are.

We've had all kinds of jibs and jabs back and forth about rule interpretations.

If the board search worked (gosh, that is taking a long time to fix!) I would suggest to do a search on the NFHS interpretation on a running lane violation on a base on balls. If you want sarcasm, you'll find the real thing there, not just a hint.

Can we grow up just a bit? We're starting to act like some of the little kids we call games for.

[/Lecture]

Re: Balderdash and baloney
 

Am not!

Re: Re: Balderdash and baloney
 

Are too! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ae...smiley-022.gif

I'm telling!

DAD!!
 

Tom(Dakota) stuck his tongue out at me! Make him stop!

Children, go to your room! (MOM)

Tom started it............Make him go first.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever.

A lesson from the law?
 

The way I read this, debeau, is that Part 1 would apply to thrown balls, and part 2 would apply to other acts that a coach might perform that interfered. Since this was a thrown ball, I would say that the interference would have to be intentional before I would call it.

Reading it the way you seem to makes the word "intentional" irrelevant. Applying a rule from law (statutory construction), you do not put in words that have no purpose. If you call anything done by a coach that interferes with the play, whether intentional or not, as interference, then you have made part 1 meaningless.

I'd like to believe that the authors of the rules would not put in wording that has no meaning. JMHO

I get your point and it is a good one . ( Are you a lawyer)
I read it as in the coaches box int has to be intentional outside it does not
Say if a coach moves to one side outside the coaches box to think he is getting out of the way but steps into a throw to home plate to retire a runner .