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

[Dakota]

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

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?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The argument is simple.

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[jimpiano]

That is so professional of you.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

That is so professional of you.

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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

Probably? ?

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

That is so professional of you.

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

[argodad]

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.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by argodad

What's our record for length of thread?

183. It's here.