![]() |
Quote:
That has to do solely with the batter being ready to take a pitch. Nothing else. The umpire should not allow the pitcher to pitch prior to the above criteria being met. Again, it has nothing to do with the OP. |
MigoP, I sent you two private messages.
Please read them. Email me privately if you want but it is time to take this off the board as it has become more about personality than actual rules application. |
Quote:
If you, as an umpire, are going to take THIS case play and decide that a rule about what a player must do while waiting for a pitch has ANYTHING to do with the initial situation, I TRULY worry about what rules from one section you're going to extend to completely inappropriate situations on the field. Either you're just looking to stir things up, or you are a VERY scary umpire. I can see it now. F1 fields a ball, starts to throw underhanded to first, recognizes that F3 is not ready, and her arm goes around twice. MIGO: "TIME!!!" Illegal pitch. The pitcher must not allow her arm to go around more than once when throwing the ball!" |
Quote:
But you want to know what else is absolutely true? IT ISN'T A CASE PLAY RULING ON RULE 8.2.6, which is the actual subject of this thread!! JEL referenced 7.4.13, which isn't the actual cite for the situation he posted, but it ALSO isn't answered by case play 7.4.8 sit A. Read the rule(s) 7.4.8, 7.4.13, and 8.2.6; read the post, read the case book play you cited. Not an answer to THIS QUESTION!! Do you get it now?? |
This was an answer to crowders remark about the book not saying one foot is out. If you look at my earlier post today I specificaaly addressed the initial post with these rules . thanks for verifying my rule cites were correct to the original post. Maybe now you"ll get it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm trying to be civil here... and recognize I'm on the edge of failing in that. Part of me wonders why I'm bothering. But I have to ask ... there've been LOTS of posts by me and you... Exactly what did I say (and in what post#) for which you thought your rule quote about a batter having to be in the box before a pitch was a valid reply? I'm not finding what I may have said to lead you to respond with that rule at all. PS - no one has "verified your rule cites were correct to the original post." Basically because not a single one of your "rule cites" apply to the OP. It would help a lot of us if you'd use the quotation functionality to show what exactly you're responding to, especially when a thread has as much going on as this one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ah. So you quoted another rule that also doesn't say one foot out of box is out of box. It just says you can't pitch until she's IN the box with both feet. Thanks.
I'm done. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
________ MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES LOCATIONS IN SANTA CLARITA |
Quote:
I think what the original question refered to is do both feet have to be out of box to be considered out of box. You've seen the rule cites from NFHS book I cited determining what constitute out of box. 1 foot out is out of box. I've asked repeatedly for a rule to the opposite but can't get one. I think they think I'm wrong because they say so. I prefer to go by published rules not opinions. Maybe you'd be better served to ask them what contradicts these rules in the NFHS book. Some wanted to say both feet need to be out, most just basically said take my word for it. If it wasn't in the book I'd understand NFHS hasn't made it clear enough to understand. When it's in the book, which has been established by rule cites, I can't tell you what their thinking. I've argued my point with rule book and case book rulings. I can't explain why you'd make a call on an opinion or what someone told you. If you could find something to contradict these rules it would help us all see where the mis interpretation is. I don't debate things so strongly when there is evidence to the contrary, but in this case I've seen none. |
well buddy to take you own words and ruling you must understand that the language is absolutely clear that it only applies to that situation. you can not extrapolate it to any other situation. it is cut and dried. you are guilty of erroneous interpretation. there is a latin phrase for it. something along the lines of using arguments for issue A to prove issue B.
hope that clears up any confusion on your part (m guy) |
I think it's pretty clear he's trolling us now.
Ignore on. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06am. |