![]() |
Quote:
In my view, there was no impeding the runner. You have no support of your invented rule against "catcher blocking the base without the ball". There was no OBS in this play. |
Wadeintothem----would you be so kind as to answer yes or no to the following question. In the case we are discussiing, if the pitcher had piched up the ball (instead of the catcher) and tagged the runner (with catcher blocking runner from touching the plate) would you call the runner out. Please, just a simple yes or no please.
|
Quote:
Good luck with that! :D |
Quote:
You umpires are looking for a way to be a part of this play. This play is good to go. Go chew some sunflower seeds or something, the girls got this. |
Quote:
|
Yes---Dakato! I do...and see how simple it is to answer a question yes/no. Reminds me of a quote "You can't reason with an unreasonable person". Sooooooooooooooooooooooo.............I give up! No more coming back to this post.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:eek: If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established that there is an exception to every rule. If we accept "For every rule there is an exception" as a rule, then we must concede that there may not be an exception after all, since the rule states that there is always the possibility of exception, and if we follow it to its logical end we must agree that there can be an exception to the rule that for every rule there is an exception.:confused: ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Interesting thread (and the theme here is one I remember being kicked around when the "about to receive" clause was removed a few years ago). Surprisingly, no one seemed to have a comment for YoungUmp's placement of the the obstructed runner (quoted/noted above...). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whats odd.. is that you find that an odd statement. Thats like the essence of this game. You probably think its about the umpire :) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59am. |