ASA Double Base - Purpose of 8.2.M.4.?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

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.

Thanks.

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

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

I never misapplied any rule.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

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. If I had only known...

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

And that kind of give and take is good, because it fosters growth and learning. And that is all I care about.

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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 , 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!

[Dakota]

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?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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...

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Rule 1.
Infield Fly Rule:
A fair fly ball, not including a line drive or an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second, or first,second,and third bases are occupied with less than two outs.

Rule 8-2 BATTER-RUNNER is out
.....
(I) When an Infield Fly is DECLARED

Rule 8-7...The RUNNER is out

(P) when, after being declared out.......an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

EFFECT: ....the ball is dead,,,The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out.

NOTE:....A runner continuing to run (may) be considered a form of interference.

Again, I am citing other rules in the ASA Rulebook which fully justify putting the runners back in the circumstances cited in the test question.

I am not disputing GREYMULE's wish for a better written rule regarding interference.

But in the unlikely event that this play would ever occur, there are exisiting rules that prevent the team from profiting from interference.

[jimpiano]

"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.

[Dakota]

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.