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

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You'd be well advised to make the distinction between "common sense" meaning "what I think it should be" and "common sense" meaning "consistent with the published rule book, clinic teaching, and official interpretations."

My statements on the force play at 1B fall into the latter category, as do the treatment of the entire double base as usable by both teams.

Umpires frequently use "common sense" as the justification for making up their own rules. Not saying you are doing that, just a caution to not take what you said too far.

That is why I referenced Greymule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

That is why I referenced Greymule.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on your more recent postings, that you were attempting to move away from trolldom. I don't know whether you are trying to insult me or greymule, but either way, I see I was wrong about you.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on your more recent postings, that you were attempting to move away from trolldom. I don't know whether you are trying to insult me or greymule, but either way, I see I was wrong about you.

I quoted Greymule as a compliment to him.

I replied to your advice by referencing Greymule's post as demonstrating that the rule book and common sense are intertwined.

I don't how you could interpret the post as an insult, but since you did, I apologize.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I quoted Greymule as a compliment to him.

I replied to your advice by referencing Greymule's post as demonstrating that the rule book and common sense are intertwined.

I don't how you could interpret the post as an insult, but since you did, I apologize.

Apology accepted. Sorry to have misunderstood, but in my defense... well, nevermind.

The rule book and common sense are intertwined, but the rulings made cannot be contradictory to the rule book. Common sense should be an extension of the known, not a replacement of it.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Apology accepted. Sorry to have misunderstood, but in my defense... well, nevermind.

The rule book and common sense are intertwined, but the rulings made cannot be contradictory to the rule book. Common sense should be an extension of the known, not a replacement of it.

I never suggested changing the interpretation of any rule for any reason. That is up to the rulesmakers with input from the players and umpires.

[greymule]

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by greymule

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

If you're calling an ASA game, and the BR does this, do you follow "common sense" or the ASA book?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by greymule

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

What play are you talking about?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

What play are you talking about?

Wow, you're quick.

[jimpiano]

The post was grom Greymule mentioning a play that was not described.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The post was grom Greymule mentioning a play that was not described.

Wow ... still quick.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the play you describe yourself (and I quoted for you)... how do you rule on such a play - "common sense" or ASA Rulebook?

[greymule]

I have to run to a doubleheader now. I'll post the play when I get back. It was on the ASA test either last year or the year before. In fact, there are a couple of variations I'd like to investigate and discuss.

[jimpiano]

He mentioned a play where the offense benefitted on intentional interference.