Wade,

I hope you feel better.

But you have yet to find me wrong in anything.
And dont bother with the insults...I could care less what you say about me.
I suggest you find someone else to share your ad hominems with.

Actually, your insistence as follows:

"I think the rule book covers that situation and makes the answer "none of the above".

"The play in question is a clear case of invoking the infield fly rule. I already cited the rules covering the play."

"And I would be correct by ASA rules."

When even the highest levels and rule writers of ASA disagree with you (one of whom is posting on this very thread) is SO wrong as to be amusing.


You are clueless.

Okay, this one comes under N.S.S. The rule you cite allows the umpire who believes (uh-oh, here comes that intent thing again) call the runner closest to home out if s/he believed it prevented a double play. R1 is NOT the runner closest to home. R1 has scored and is no longer a participant in the play.

R1 is the closest player to the plate since the interference(running after being declared out) happened before R1 crossed the plate.

Quote:
I When an infield fly is DECLARED.

Another N.S.S.

N.S.S. what?


Quote:
In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.


The rule you are citing (retired running) refers to drawing a throw.

Cant draw a throw when the ball is in the air...how do you explain that?

Quote:
Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:

And you get the 2nd out, it just isn't R1.

R1 cannot score on a foul ball and he cannot score when the interference(runner declared out continues to run) happens before R1 scores.


Quote:
If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out

Again, the "continuing to run" is not applicable as it isn't drawing a throw.

See above.


Quote:
...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.

Again, we are back to N.S.S. That is exactly the answer given by ASA on the test. At the time of the INT the runner closest to home is R2.

The ASA test ignored an obvious infield fly rule....which means the test in it's narrowest sense is correct......but not in any real life experience under the same conditions...a distinction which contines to elude you.

Quote:
I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.

Sorry, but it's only a good example of running a thread in circles with extraneous and irrelevant information while demonstrating a lack in rules applications.

If you say so.

But I disagree.
__________________

The answer to all of this is obvious:

All of our 2007 ASA rule books are wrong, and Jim is out there with the only correct copy. (Probably still has the batter's boxes at 3x7.)

Jim, could you scan your lone correct copy of the rulebook into some common format and post it so we will all have one? Thanks!

John,

I have read the 2007 Rule Book.

Everything I have posted is correct by that rule book.

If you disagree, then please speak up.

If you cannot back up what you say, then you are going to have trouble making any ruling on the field that the players will respect.

Do the players respect the fist pump?








I don't.

Jim,
I'm not going to waste my time or anyone else's refuting statements which have already been refuted.

As for the last sentence...ah, never mind...lathering up over nothing. Back to trolldom ya go.

No, you have not been completely correct, by the written rule. It has been pointed out by more than one member that you are suggesting misapplication of some rules to suit your personal beliefs.

IOW, we are pissing into the wind. I'm done with this one.

Thanks.

It is not unusal for someone who insults to be be speechless when asked for facts.

I never misapplied any rule.

You (and others) lasted much longer than I expected. I have been done since his first post. I believe I spoke of tugging on Superman's cape long ago.

THAT is funny. My intention was not to insult, but you read into my post in the same manner you read into the rule book, umpire's manual and who knows what else. You're probably the buy who cut off that car on 405 today that made me take a detour to see SRW break his NCAA cherry (took a little pride since I was a trainer thereof).

But dang it, I have wasted breath again.

:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:
:smacking self for feeding the troll:

Good. I feel better now. Self-flagellation is even better than a double fist pump. :eek: If I had only known...

If this statement you made about learning is true, then you have to realize that there is a time to listen. You have been given sound advice in this thread by people with more experience than you and an understanding of the rules that many of us may never attain, and yet you choose to ignore it. Now is the time to listen, and to learn.

I would add this -
Disagreeing is not the problem Jimpiano - I and most everyone else routinely disagree with people on this board at one point or another.

You have to have some level of recognition that there are people who know more than you and take what they say and learn from it or be able to present a lucid argument that they may learn from it. If you think a certain way about a rule and it's incorrect, when those who know correct you and show you where you are incorrect, then THAT a method of learning. There is no shame in being incorrect about a rule application. The Umpires on this board IMO possess a higher level of dedication and work DAILY to improve themselves through communication and evaluation of rules and scenarios.

About now is where you SHOULD man up and say "I understand, thank you" and actually learn from it. You don't stand fast in face of overwhelming evidence from the highest levels of the ASA (I'm not one of those, but they are here and they wrote the test question you are arguing). Thats NOT learning. That's simply being disagreeable to be disagreeable.

Since you probably really don't know, your first tip usually that you are incorrect is when Irishmike says you are incorrect. That's your "oh sh..t" moment that you run to your book and reevaluate what you think. Hes forgotten more than you know. That's just simple fact, evidenced by hundreds of posts teaching people and his position within the ASA; he is a resource that is invaluable here. I do admit he can tick you off at times :D, but the man knows.

Now really, pull your head out and truly be here to learn, as you say you are, and stop the BS.

Theres no brown on my nose is there?

Now I'm outta here, the season starts for me today (no NFHS this year :( ) I cant wait to get on the field. A-ball showcase woot!

jp, here is where you fall off the rails, and either you don't get it or are being intentionally a troll.

There was no infield fly. The BR was not a retired runner. And, even if there was, one of the injustices here in the question scenario is preventing the defense from nullifying the run by appealing R1 for leaving early on a caught fly.

Get it???

What an argumentative troll you seem to be. I imagine you were in your element dominating the discussion of your little break out group. Did anyone else get to say anything at all?

You can continue to make up an argument you want.

But that was not mine.

If you want to make this claim, you have some cleaning up to do. One of many...

"but, in the ulikely event this play would ever occur, there are existing rules that prevent a team from profiting from interference."

This point seems difficult for you to grasp.

No, it is just that your point is wrong. It is relying on a non-existent IF. One, I guess, according to your argument, that you would call in spite of whether it actually WAS an IF.

I guess you simply cannot read.

So, your "debate" style is to say something, say it again, insist on it, and when called out on it so many times that it is undeniable, you then deny saying it. It is a complete waste of time even discussing things with you.

And your style is to completely distort the argument when the rule book proves you wrong.

What rule proves me wrong?

What that I said does it prove wrong?

What rule proves you right?

What that you said does it prove right?

The argument is simple.

The test question ignored the IFR.( if you can argue with a straight face that a bases loaded pop fly near the foul line high enough to allow the batter to interfere with the first baseman AFTER the runner has scored without invoking the infield fly rule then you can be a great fiction writer.)
Therefore the test question was constructed to get the anwer it wanted wihout regard to reality.

The test question is simply not what happens in real life.

What happens in real life is covered by the existing rules. Why you argue otherwise is a mystery.

The question would make sense if you removed the runner from second base.

It makes no sense with the bases loaded.

So, you can't answer my questions. Instead, you make up your own question. Nailing you down is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

I answered the test question.

I also answered what would happen in real life.

OK, I'll smack my head again. Here is another wonderfully clear statement.

Why is there NOT an infield fly? Because no one declared an infield fly.

You can declare an infield fly at almost any time provided you have runners at 1b and 2B or 1B, 2B and 3B with less than two outs.

Am I correct (he asked rhetorically)?

So, Rudolph is the PU and Blitzen is the BU. They've got an infield fly situation. BUT... If no one declares an infield fly ... there is no infield fly. This happens every day somewhere. I would daresay many folks who participate in this forum (even if they are "just" readers) have NOT called an infield fly in an "obvious" infield fly situation. This may be due to any number of factors including brain lock, sun in the eyes of someone, a good looking person in the stands, blithering idiot game administrators, or whatever.

It mirrors the old saw: if a bear is flatulent in the woods but no one is there, how do we know the bear passed gas? We don't.

And if no one declares an infield fly, there is NO INFIELD FLY.

Now I shall go prepare to smack myself silly again. Thanks for playing and Jim, enjoy sniffing out that bear.

Thanks for contributing.

This is like practicing tennis against a barn. Lots of action, but nothing accomplished. Jim, if you ever decide to actually listen and learn and make ratioinal statements, let us know, would you?

Now, go back behind your barn and practice your fist banging.

That is so professional of you.

And you are probably completely oblivious to the screaming irony of that statement from you. :rolleyes:

Probably? ?

It would be very professional if he got the appropriate hand/slapping, fist banging signals with it, right? :p

What's our record for length of thread?

Can we get a special warning on any threads in which jimpiano posts more than twice? He causes my blood pressure to climb.:(

183. It\'s here.

Wouldn\'t you know it?! It was a thread that didn\'t even start off having anything to do with softball.

And...that old thread was dominated by a $#@ing troll...

Notice the resemblance between that one and this one??? :D

I think we should hire an instigator, er, I mean an investigator.:o