Lifted Up

You are right of course, Simon. Next one...and I am not thinking these up; this one came up just last night. Batter swings and tops one right in front of the plate...often called a "swinging bunt". As he starts down the line for first, he drops the bat in front of the plate. The ball rolls back and hits the bat (in fair territory). Is the batter out at that point, or is he still alive in his attempt to reach first base?

Because baseball play possibilities are so numerous, and the rules complicated enough, that when we attempt to discuss even a sample of the possibilities, it can sound confusing to the unstudies ear. A & C knew this and turned it into their classic routine by subsituting their interesting "names" for players.

Because the play possibilities are so numerous, the rules have to be extensive to cover, as well as can be done, so that the umpire does not have to "guess" in rules situations. obviously there are a lot of judgement calls (ball or strike, safe or out, etc). But within that framework, we like to have something concrete to guide our decisions, so we can have some pretense of authority.

If this is too boring for you, bear with me; you would never guess what I am thinking now in line with this.

If a runner slides into home plate and the catcher puts the tag on him, I have to judge whether or not he did tag him, and if he did before or after the runner reached the plate. But before I make an out call, I must see concrete evidence that the catcher (or whatever fielder is involved) is still holding the ball in that glove. A lot of times in a plate collision, I have to search that out. The rules say he has to hold that ball. So I may not make my call for a few seconds.

Determining what happended in real life can be like that for me. That is why I am so big on testimony. And for testimony to carry the weight of seeing that baseball in the catcher's mitt, I must know that it is reliable...the person doing the testifying must be more than an anonymous someone to me, and definitely more than someone else referring to an anonymous someone's words.

In order not to tie up this thread on the wonderful subject of baseball, further explanations of my thinking, if desired (which may be unlikely) may be obtained by using the PT route or by e-mailing me at smile092850@hotmail.com .

Now, for a personal tidbit...

I have seen major league baseball games live at the following places...

The Coliseum in Los Angeles

Wrigley Field in Los Angeles (yes, there was one)

Municipal Stadium in Cleveland

DC/RFK Stadium in Washington

Memorial Stadium in Baltimore

Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, MN

Atlanta/Fulton Co. Stadium in Atlanta

The big A at Anaheim (before it was closed in)

Fenway Park in Boston

Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia

As you may corretcly guess, by the fact that many of the above either dont exist anymore or are not big league ballparks anymore, it has been quite many years since I have seen a big league game live. But, now the taste of being in real action (as an umpire) seems to be better.

Happy birthday Grizz! I will spare you the Russian bear hug.

All right, who's talkin'? Called seven games in a tournament over the weekend, including the championship game. Aside from forgetting to keep my hand out of the way on a pitch the catcher missed totally, it went well.

A couple of rules points that came up, which not everyone seemed to know; how about you?

Runners on first and third, two out, and the catcher missed a third strike. Is the batter automatically out? (Note, these are big kids, and we play regular baseball rules except for some substitution and pitching changes).

Runner on first steals second on a foul tip, which is held by the catcher. Is the runner entitled to second, or must he return?

Now I KNOW I've seen you around the last day or two. Come in, Hawk!

hearts can be hurt...discouraged...when hit repeatedly.

It's not a matter of doubting God...questioning his desires for us...

We are human...we seem so weak...tired.

Like the persecuted Christians on another thread...we can draw strength of heart from those who support us...

because we know that support goes through the most powerful and loving one there is.

But because we are human, we get encouraged by each others' direct support,

and there is nothing wrong with that.

I hope for both reasons, my thoughts and promise of prayers for you and Fred will help.

She deserves prayer; obviously has a warm place in more than one heart.

Doesnt matter when the batter gets to first. Once a runner is forced out, the force is off for any preceeding runners. (Not for following runners).

From your description sounds like the ump blew the second out call...once the runner at first is forced at second, the runner at second should no longer be subject to the force. However, the no hitter is of course still good.

Some of the kids leagues cant always get top notch umpires. Or a lot of them. I work mostly with the kids, but I am certified and qualified to work adult amateur games. Theoretically, I could work the local minor league games in a pinch, but that is not going to happen.

Normally, the batter will not be credited with a hit if any preceeding runner is put out before reaching the next base if he is forced to vacate his original base by the batter or a following runner. My scenario is an exception which is specifically covered in the scoring rules. In Simon's scenario, the runner who is out had already reached the next base; he is out for passing the preceeding runner. The runner on third never reaches home, but neither is he put out. So, after further reflection, unless I later find a rule contradicting it, I would say Simon's scenario is correct as well...that is, the batter would be credited with a hit.

P.S. A runner who is not forced to advance doesnt have to for the batter to have a hit. This happens often; such as runner on second, batter gets an infield hit to third, runner on second holding. Batter is credited with a base hit.

Rule 10.05(e) on my scenario. On yours, I don't know; I havent found the rule to confirm or deny it yet.

Yes. At least one way. Two singles; batters thrown out trying to stretch their hits. Three singles to load the bases. Sixth batter hits a bouncer down the third base line which strikes the runner who was on third in fair territory. (Runner should and almost always do lead off on the foul side of the line). Runner is out for interference, but batter by the rulebook is credited with a base hit. Six hits, no runs.

The fielder does have the right away if he is fielding the ball. But that does not negate the fact that obstruction (interference by the fielder) IS possible, and it is therefore a way the runner can score.

The runner would stay at third on catcher's interference. Unless the bases were loaded, but the premise of a runner tagging at second and going to third implies that is not the case. And if the bases do become loaded, like through walks, then the runner would have made it to third without moving over on the fly ball.

Hey, don't you realize umpires have fun on the field?! Okay, some umpires, anyway.

Umpire's judgement. Yes, assuming he is attempting to field the ball, but fielder interference (called obstruction) is also possible. Especially if two or more fielders are going for the ball, and the one not fielding it runs into the runner.

Does this thread need a certified baseball umpire?

Yea, and I didnt even know about this poem until I saw it on the above mentioned group's website several days ago. However, that its author is still working to help the persecuted church should be no surprise.

From Kristin Wright, head of a group called StandToday...

Timothy Chmykhalov, a young Christian in the Soviet Union of the 1970s, faced severe persecution under the Communist government. Denied exit visas, he and his family spent five years confined in the American Embassy in Moscow. One day during his confinement, Timothy wrote a poem dedicated to the martyrs in the U.S.S.R. and other Communist nations. As he wrote, he imagined that he was addressing Christians in foreign lands. Timothy's poem echoes the cry of millions of persecuted Christians worldwide. We would do well to read it as a message from them.

Think about your loved ones,

About: how people are dying here.

About: how Christians are mocked.

About: how many are in insane asylums.

I beg you to think of those---

Of those who are already considered dead;

Of those who are heavily drugged in psychiatric hospitals;

Of those who are dying in prisons and labor camps.

As I ask all of you,

My dear friends,

All my dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Think of them and make your decision.

Thus they await God's help,

Thus they thirst after righteousness.

How they would like to be

The masters of their own destiny

To live free in their own country.

But God wants you to work,

To be fully dedicated to godly pursuits,

And to intercede on their behalf---

Those in psychiatric hospitals, prisons,

Labor camps and in exile.

May they be allowed to live in peace,

Either in this country or in some other,

For those hoping for permission to emigrate

To a country in which they want to live

So they can worship God there in freedom.

The persecution of Christians...and others...is of course not an exclusive feature of Communism. Even in post-Soviet Russia this persecution has not totally gone. The above post by Kit is, of course just one of many examples of how it (persecution) continues in the world. I don't think it matters under what label or in whose name it is done----I think Timothy's poem applies with as much force today as it did at the time of his confinement.

Oldies, for someone who has gone on record as seeing abortion as the taking of a human life (I believe that is accurate, correct me if I am wrong).....why does rascal's testimony not horrify you?

Ya know, as I have stated in the past, as as a few may be aware of, I am real picky about testimony. Second and third hand stories of this or that happened to so-and-so, such happened to so many people, or even presumed first hand accounts by completely anonymous sources don't often impress me. I do respect that there can be excellent personal reasons for not telling all, such as the horror of living through the event again in front of everyone, but it doesnt help the believability.

THEREFORE, when someone is so open and detailed in their account, as Rascal has been, even to the point of answering your last question in detail, despite the tone of doubt you expressed in asking it.....I accept that testimony.

Recently, on another thread, you asked a question that looked to me very reasonable to ask, and yet a certain poster came down on you, not just calling it a "stupid question", but the stupid question that "takes the cake", pretty much stating that you were an idiot even to ask it. See my response on the "Patton" thread, currently on page two of this forum as I post.

If someone calls you an idiot...or if someone calls you a liar when you are giving testimony about what happened to you personally...it is quite a personal attack. Or were you there? Whate makes it more interesting is your apparent stand on the abortion issue, and whether or not someone agrees with you on that, it is surprising that you don't seem to see horror in what Rascal testified as to what she went through.

Exy, is your reluctance to embrace the Schoenheit paper at all related to the fact that is deals extensively with adultrey as a sin, but does not deal with its sometimes (often?) one sided, abusive nature???

Exy if it is putting a MAN on a pedestal that causes you pain, then aren't you just wild about RFR??? :D-->

Oldies and Goey are both right about Schoenheit. Yes, he did just what he should have done, and yes it was a big deal in that environment.

Ex is right, too; we don't need to make him a big hero. But for that matter, I have seen no evidence that he considers himself as such. Let's just be thankful...to You Know Who...that he did it. Maybe he could have or should have done even more...I have a sneaking suspicion that may have something to do with Exxy's reply...but he didn't do what some others did...that is, nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mj412:

One more thing Rascal

Blame twi all you want it isnt hurting anyone at all mostly not them, But I do pray to God you stop blaming your own self, because your rage and pain clearly sounds as if it hurts you still.

---

I don't think she is doing it for me, but Rascal I think knows how big I am on testimony. I having an issue with her about testimony regarding a different subject. However, in this case, Rascal has been giving oodles of testimony about what happened to her.

Pain? Still hurting? What do you expect? But you make it sound like she is controlled or obsessed by the pain and blame. Rascal testified as to what happened to her and why, accepting both her own responsibility and telling of those in TWI who made it the "spiritual thing to do".

Okay, I don't mean to get on you too much. I guess someone giving such testimony as Rascal gives COULD be buried in blame and guilt, even though I don't see any real indication of it. I think I know enough about her to feel quite safe that she has the pain well under control. Make that very well. Better than I do, I think, in some different matters.

No, we are not best friends and lifelong buddies. But those of use who have been around for a while know her a lot better than we know most, because she has been so open and not anonymous. I AM NOT KNOCKING ANONYMOUS POSTING, for which there can be very good reasons. It is just much easier to believe and trust someone you know as a person and not just as an anonymous poster.

Oh, and if the only reason I had to post here was to "defend" Rascal, I could have saved my breath. Another thing about us both being sort of "old timers" around here (sorry for the terminology, Rascal) is that I know she doesn't need ME to speak for her. And I know you are not criticizing her personally. But your response seems to dilute her testimony, which I have found very valuable for reasons I gave above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oakspear:

I first heard bad press about TWI in 1979. My girlfriend and her mother had taken PFAL, and had both left in the face of family pressure following a divorce. I was in the hospital for a few days for some minor surgery and they brought me a pile of press clippings about TWI.

Most of it centered on doctrine. "They're a cult because they believe that Jesus ain't Gawd". The other stuff was so bizarre, and outside what I was experiencing that I couldn't believe that any of it was true.

---

During my deprogramming, I had the "pleasure" of "examining" a large binder of press clippings and letters which supposedly showed how bad TWI was. As Oak points out, stuff from the outside tends to reek with lack of authority. Some of the letters were interesting because thay had some stuff from the inside, but one didn't have the intended effect. It was a letter protesting Ohio University's decision to allow the use (rental) of its facilities for advanced class '79. The reasons the protester gave seemed to be taken from the clippings. Furthermore, and I think this was an "oversight", the letter was accomanied by the university's reply which made basically two points...that the decision to allow the rental use was not made on the group's (TWI) religious beliefs, and also that information obtained from Ball State University officials referred very favorably to TWI's care of their facilities during PFAL '77.

BTW, the "Jesus Christ is not God" thing was apparently a prime motivator in arranging my deprogramming, in which a certain Lutheran Church was involved.