I forgot to mention my league requires 9 defensive outs, not 6.  Unless the
player arrivers too late to make it possible.  LL approved

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Wiggins" <ewiggins11@...>
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [llumpires] Re: Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid


> 4.09 d .  I see nothing there that requires MPR.  LL waives MPR on a
league
> by league basis. My league's approved by LL local rules waives MPR due to
a
> number of circumstances not controlled by the manager.  Kids ariving after
> MPR is imposiibile is one of them.  I agree tournament rules are
different.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clay Berry" <parkaleo@...>
> To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:51 PM
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid
>
>
> > Ed Wiggins wrote:
> > > nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.
> >
> > Would you be so kind as to site your source for this information. It
> > seems to go against what most of us have been taught.
> >
> > clay
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
> League Baseball, Inc.
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
> for off-list use.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

4.09 d .  I see nothing there that requires MPR.  LL waives MPR on a league
by league basis. My league's approved by LL local rules waives MPR due to a
number of circumstances not controlled by the manager.  Kids ariving after
MPR is imposiibile is one of them.  I agree tournament rules are different.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Berry" <parkaleo@...>
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: [llumpires] Re: Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid


> Ed Wiggins wrote:
> > nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.
>
> Would you be so kind as to site your source for this information. It
> seems to go against what most of us have been taught.
>
> clay
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Ed Wiggins wrote:
> nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.

Would you be so kind as to site your source for this information. It
seems to go against what most of us have been taught.

clay

The rule does say that a manager MAY play him (he isn't required to), but I'm
not aware of anything that says that if the manager chooses to play this player
that he's not subject to MPR.
============================================================
From: Theodore Gazulis <tgazulis@...>
Date: 2004/02/29 Sun PM 09:08:37 PST
To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in the rules saying that
if a player arrives late he does not have to meet the MPR requirement.

TG
CA - D3

Ed Wiggins <ewiggins11@...> wrote:
nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid


> No, but if he does play him he must meet MPR.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




--
The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little League
Baseball, Inc.

To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission for
off-list use.
Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--
The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little League
Baseball, Inc.

To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission for
off-list use.
Yahoo! Groups Links





============================================================


Will Bumgardner
Chief Umpire -- Carson City Little League, Carson City, NV
Assistant District Umpire Consultant -- Nevada District 1

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in the rules saying that
if a player arrives late he does not have to meet the MPR requirement.

TG
CA - D3

Ed Wiggins <ewiggins11@...> wrote:
nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid


> No, but if he does play him he must meet MPR.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




--
The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little League
Baseball, Inc.

To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission for
off-list use.
Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

nope, children arriving late are allowed to play, MPR or not.

----- Original Message -----
From: <magumbo@...>
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid


> No, but if he does play him he must meet MPR.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

No, but if he does play him he must meet MPR.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No - 4.01(d)

Nick Haluschak
WA Dist 4
Vancouver, WA



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Umpire-In-Chief [mailto:umpirechief@...]
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 21:23
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid
>
>
> In the minimum play regulation - if a player shows up late
> for the game, does the manager have to play the kid?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with
> Little League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
> permission for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

LL RIM

Rule 4.01 NOTE: Rostered players who arrive at the game site after a game
begins may be inserted in the lineup, if the manager so chooses. This
applies even when a suspended game is resumed at a later date.

Rule 4.04: Also, if a child arrives late to a game site if the manager
chooses to enter him/her in the lineup (See Rule 4.01 NOTE) they would be
added to the end of the current lineup.

Hayes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Umpire-In-Chief [mailto:umpirechief@...]
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:23 PM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid
>
>
> In the minimum play regulation - if a player shows up late
> for the game, does the manager have to play the kid?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Larson [mailto:robert.b.larson@...]
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:21 AM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [llumpires] 3rd Base Line Extended
>
> I'm glad to see that even you w/ your years of experience get
> the jeebies
> the first few games of the year.  :-)

Bob,

The "jeebies" are soon replaced with the "owies" as in "ow, I really hurt
this morning after doing a HS doubleheader yesterday."   ;o]

Although these were "scrimmages" between two of the better teams in our area
that have basically year-round programs, there was still some rust on the
kids. Difference between their scrimmages and a game is only that we are
relaxed with the lineup (no BOO), there is free substitution so they can see
a lot of kids at various positions and we're real liberal with the defensive
and offensive conferences as long as the game keeps a good pace. Kids were
great but one of the assistant coaches on the visiting team was riding me
from the start. I attribute it to his comment made to me last year during a
playoff game they lost where he loudly yelled that I should "go back to
umpiring only LL games." In the second inning I restricted him to the dugout
after he'd been chirping about the strike zone, a hit batter that "didn't
get out of the way" and a few other things. Nice thing was I didn't hear a
peep out of him the rest of my plate game.

First game was a pitching gem by the home team. Starter went five innings
and had a no-no going through that time. Game ended up a 5-0 3-hitter.

Second game I worked (I use this word liberally since I was hobbling on bad
knees) the bases. Was in A position with visitors in the field when a smash
grounder went over the first base bag. F3 got a glove on it and I vigorously
point the ball fair. Ball glances off F3's glove towards my left leg and I
take two steps fair. F3 retrieves the ball (now you have to know that this
is behind me) as I concentrate on F1 coming over to cover and BR busting his
butt up the line. Throw is hard, on line and in time as I loudly bang the BR
out. As F3 is getting back into position both the home coach in the box and
I are telling him what a great play he had just made. Boy, this kid was
beaming from ear to ear.

This game ended up a 5-4 game as the visitors mounted a 4-run rally in the
top of the seventh. Gotta hand it to the home coach who came out and stuck
with the pitcher who had a string of bad luck and some "seeing eye" hits.
During a conference at the mound I heard him tell his pitcher that he was
sticking with him through the end, regardless whether or not they won or
lost the game. He told the pitcher that he needs to learn how to not get
down on himself, have faith in his teammates and see things through to the
end, regardless what the outcome was. (What a refreshing class act.) Pitcher
balked to move the tying run over to 3B and then he immediately struck out
the last two batters to end the game.

Now, to the "aw shucks" part of the game. With R1/R2 this same pitcher
stepped and DIDN'T throw to first base. Guess I had enough Vicodin in me to
not immediately register that this was a balk. Then the head coach in the 3B
box yells across to me, "Hayes, isn't that a balk?" I replied, "By gosh
Steve you're right. Silly me." We had a good laugh as we moved the runners
up.

For those still reading I've come to a conclusion on my umpiring career at
this specific time. I can no longer do the A position and pivot justice on
the 90' field because of my bad knees. (Just ask Jack C-L what I looked like
last week demonstrating the pivot on the 60' diamond.) They don't hurt as
much doing the plate as the sustained running just isn't there. It's not the
bending of the knees that hurts as much as the bending and pounding they
receive from running. Tomorrow night we have an association meeting and I'm
going to tell the assignor not to assign me to any more "upper varsity"
bases. I'll work JV, Frosh and "lower varsity" bases from only the B/C
positions to save the pounding on my knees. We've got guys in our
association that do not work plates for one reason or another so I don't
expect much problem. Besides, we are SOoooo short of umpires that I know
there really isn't much the association can say anyway.  ;-)

Hayes

No.  By rule, once the game starts, any player that shows up late is not
required to be put in the game.
============================================================
From: "Umpire-In-Chief" <umpirechief@...>
Date: 2004/02/28 Sat PM 09:23:10 PST
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [llumpires] Minimum Play - Does Manager Have to Play Kid

In the minimum play regulation - if a player shows up late for the game, does
the manager have to play the kid?


Will Bumgardner
Chief Umpire -- Carson City Little League, Carson City, NV
Assistant District Umpire Consultant -- Nevada District 1

In the minimum play regulation - if a player shows up late for the game, does
the manager have to play the kid?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was apprehensive about 3 BLE.  What I started doing was line up either 1
step to the left of the point or the point.  I found that in my games at
least, I found myself taking 3BLE much more often than 1BLE.  For me the
view for the majority of the plays are better there, and especially the
nut-cutter plays.  It seems that catchers are much more often coming up off
the plate and coming back for the tag, therefore swiping.

I'm glad to see that even you w/ your years of experience get the jeebies
the first few games of the year.  :-)

Bob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hayes Davis" <purphaze@...>
To: "(llumpires group) (E-mail)" <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: [llumpires] 3rd Base Line Extended


> Did a HS varsity game last night between Delano and Bakersfield. Was close
> for the first four innings until BHS steadily showed they were the better
> team this day.
>
> In the second inning Delano had R2 who tried to score on a base hit to
right
> field. Things started clicking and I just knew there was the possibility
of
> a swipe tag at the plate so I rotated to 3rd base line extended. This kept
> the play coming TOWARDS me and I had a great view of the head-first slide,
> F2 not obstructing the runner by being in front of the baseline, F2
> receiving the ball and swipe tagging the runner on the forearm just before
> his hand reached the plate. What a banger, and not a whimper out of
anyone.
>
> I thought I would be rusty for my early games this season (I'm always
> "apprehensive" first couple of games) but it always amazes me when the
years
> of experience and training just automatically take over. Guess I should be
> appreciative that I AM old and have those years of experience and training
> to rely on.  ;o]
>
> Hayes
>
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Did a HS varsity game last night between Delano and Bakersfield. Was close
for the first four innings until BHS steadily showed they were the better
team this day.

In the second inning Delano had R2 who tried to score on a base hit to right
field. Things started clicking and I just knew there was the possibility of
a swipe tag at the plate so I rotated to 3rd base line extended. This kept
the play coming TOWARDS me and I had a great view of the head-first slide,
F2 not obstructing the runner by being in front of the baseline, F2
receiving the ball and swipe tagging the runner on the forearm just before
his hand reached the plate. What a banger, and not a whimper out of anyone.

I thought I would be rusty for my early games this season (I'm always
"apprehensive" first couple of games) but it always amazes me when the years
of experience and training just automatically take over. Guess I should be
appreciative that I AM old and have those years of experience and training
to rely on.  ;o]

Hayes

Jeff,

What a snow job!  ;o]

Hayes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Buxton [mailto:jbuxton@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:19 PM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: FW: Different interpretations of
> 4.04 and it's
> impact on 3.03
>
>
> Wait -- I thought we didn't exist ? Or is that just in SWR ? I know I
> exist (I ump, therefore I am), but do I exist on the internet, where
> no-one really knows I'm a dog.
>
> Any-hoo---thanks, Dave, for carrying the water on this one, and
> thanks to Andy K for his apology and swift and sure clarification.
>
> So....when will I be getting my WS assignment, or does my preeminent
> obsequiousness need more work ? Once you can fake that sincerity
> thing, you've got it made, you know.
>
> You guys are the best.

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the llumpires
group.

   File        : /bl040224.gif
   Uploaded by : paulwb2 <pbrockett@...>
   Description : A Funny in the Bleachers for every new umpire any level

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/files/bl040224.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

paulwb2 <pbrockett@...>

Wait -- I thought we didn't exist ? Or is that just in SWR ? I know I
exist (I ump, therefore I am), but do I exist on the internet, where
no-one really knows I'm a dog.

Any-hoo---thanks, Dave, for carrying the water on this one, and
thanks to Andy K for his apology and swift and sure clarification.

So....when will I be getting my WS assignment, or does my preeminent
obsequiousness need more work ? Once you can fake that sincerity
thing, you've got it made, you know.

You guys are the best.

--- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Hensley" <dhensley@a...>
wrote:
> Following is my inquiry, Andy's response, and my reply to his
reply, which
> atttempted to assuage his apparent pique at us gol-derned uppity
Internet
> umpires.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@v...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: Andy Konyar
> Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on
3.03
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt response.  For whatever reason, perhaps
time
> constraints, Kevin elected not to email you directly but suggested
that
> another listmember might request such clarification.  The Yahoo
Groups list
> of Little League umpires has 400 members, and we take your concern
about the
> risk of distorted information very much to heart.  We try to be very
> diligent in documenting and accurately quoting our sources - League
UIC's,
> District UIC's, regional instructors, all the way up to the grand
poobah
> himself :), in particular when we are discussing and attempting to
reconcile
> apparently contradictory information.
>
> Again, thank you for the clarification and I hope all is well in
> Williamsport.
>
> Dave Hensley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Konyar [mailto:akonyar@L...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:15 AM
> To: dhensley@a...
> Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on
3.03
>
>
> First let me say that if Kevin wants an interpretation from me
he/she should
> contact me himself.  When things are fed through a 3rd party it
tends to get
> distorted somewhat.
> That being said, nothing got distorted except me.  I talked to a
gentlemen
> that works with Kevin and told him/her the wrong answer.  I emailed
that
> gentlemen yesterday morning with my apologies and the correct
> interpretation.  If the continuous batting order is used 3.03
becomes
> inapplicable (your word, I can't even spell it).
> Sorry for any confusion and will pay attention more in the future.
> Andy Konyar
> Umpire in Chief
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@v...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:32 AM
> To: Andy Konyar
> Subject: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03
>
> Dear Andy,
>
> A couple of years ago when the new rule 4.04 was introduced,
allowing
> leagues to adopt a "bat the roster" or "continuous batting order"
rule for
> majors division, a Little League umpire named Clay Berry sent you
an email
> requesting clarification of the new rule, and how it was to impact
rule
> 3.03, which governs starter re-entry.  Your email response to Clay
at that
> time clearly established the interpretation that if a league adopts
4.04,
> then the provisions of 3.03 (except 3.03(3) which prohibits a
pitcher from
> returning to the mound after being removed) were rendered
inapplicable.
> Clay presented several hypothetical scenarios to gain understanding
of how
> the rule was to be interpreted; your answers clearly endorsed the
idea that
> if 4.04 was operative, "free defensive substitutions" could be made
at any
> time (as 4.04 explicitly says) without any requirement for
considering
> whether a player being replaced in a defensive position has played 6
> consecutive defensive outs, as rule 3.03 would require.
>
> For your reference, your answers to Clay's inquiry in November,
2001, can be
> reviewed in the llumpires maillist archives at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/32721
>
> As an aside, you also replied to my own email inquiry at around the
same
> time that if the new 4.04 was adopted by a league, then that would
render
> 3.03 inapplicable, except for 3.03(3) regarding pitchers returning
to the
> mound.
>
> Yesterday, another Little League umpire, Kevin Hunter, reported to
the
> llumpires list that you had responded to a similar query concerning
the
> interaction of 3.03 and 4.04 with an interpretation that
contradicts your
> previous (11/01) statement.  Here is a link to Kevin's message for
your
> review:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/52223
>
> As you might expect, Kevin's report of your interpretation has many
of us
> scratching our heads, wondering why the interpretation has changed
when
> there has been no actual rule change.  Some of us are speculating
there may
> have been some kind of miscommunication in the way the question was
asked,
> or something.  Regardless, many of us on the list would be very
appreciative
> of your clarifying Little League's "official" interpretation on
whether 3.03
> (except 3.03(3)) are applicable or not when a league adopts
continuous
> batting order per 4.04.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Hensley
> Dallas, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theodore Gazulis [mailto:tgazulis@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:28 AM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [llumpires] FW: Different interpretations of
> 4.04 and it's
> impact on 3.03
>
>
> obsequiousness.

Thank God I have WordWeb on my computer.  ;o]

Hayes

Sheesh...a little testy huh!  There goes your WS assignment
Kevin.  :>)

I posted the Clay Berry email in the files section in the folder
titled "Official LL Interpretations".  I'd encourage others to post
written responses from official LL sources in that same folder when
applicable.  It's likely to be the best LL authoritative opinion
source available to us.

John
CA D62 UIC

--- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "Theodore Gazulis" <tgazulis@s...>
wrote:
> Well done, Dave.  Just the right tone of obsequiousness.
>
> TG
> CA - D3
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Hensley" <dhensley@a...>
> To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:32 AM
> Subject: [llumpires] FW: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's
impact
> on 3.03
>
>
> > Following is my inquiry, Andy's response, and my reply to his
reply, which
> > atttempted to assuage his apparent pique at us gol-derned uppity
Internet
> > umpires.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:28 AM
> > To: Andy Konyar
> > Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on
3.03
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your prompt response.  For whatever reason, perhaps
time
> > constraints, Kevin elected not to email you directly but
suggested that
> > another listmember might request such clarification.  The Yahoo
Groups
> list
> > of Little League umpires has 400 members, and we take your
concern about
> the
> > risk of distorted information very much to heart.  We try to be
very
> > diligent in documenting and accurately quoting our sources -
League UIC's,
> > District UIC's, regional instructors, all the way up to the grand
poobah
> > himself :), in particular when we are discussing and attempting to
> reconcile
> > apparently contradictory information.
> >
> > Again, thank you for the clarification and I hope all is well in
> > Williamsport.
> >
> > Dave Hensley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Konyar [mailto:akonyar@L...]
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:15 AM
> > To: dhensley@a...
> > Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on
3.03
> >
> >
> > First let me say that if Kevin wants an interpretation from me
he/she
> should
> > contact me himself.  When things are fed through a 3rd party it
tends to
> get
> > distorted somewhat.
> > That being said, nothing got distorted except me.  I talked to a
gentlemen
> > that works with Kevin and told him/her the wrong answer.  I
emailed that
> > gentlemen yesterday morning with my apologies and the correct
> > interpretation.  If the continuous batting order is used 3.03
becomes
> > inapplicable (your word, I can't even spell it).
> > Sorry for any confusion and will pay attention more in the future.
> > Andy Konyar
> > Umpire in Chief
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:32 AM
> > To: Andy Konyar
> > Subject: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03
> >
> > Dear Andy,
> >
> > A couple of years ago when the new rule 4.04 was introduced,
allowing
> > leagues to adopt a "bat the roster" or "continuous batting order"
rule for
> > majors division, a Little League umpire named Clay Berry sent you
an email
> > requesting clarification of the new rule, and how it was to
impact rule
> > 3.03, which governs starter re-entry.  Your email response to
Clay at that
> > time clearly established the interpretation that if a league
adopts 4.04,
> > then the provisions of 3.03 (except 3.03(3) which prohibits a
pitcher from
> > returning to the mound after being removed) were rendered
inapplicable.
> > Clay presented several hypothetical scenarios to gain
understanding of how
> > the rule was to be interpreted; your answers clearly endorsed the
idea
> that
> > if 4.04 was operative, "free defensive substitutions" could be
made at any
> > time (as 4.04 explicitly says) without any requirement for
considering
> > whether a player being replaced in a defensive position has
played 6
> > consecutive defensive outs, as rule 3.03 would require.
> >
> > For your reference, your answers to Clay's inquiry in November,
2001, can
> be
> > reviewed in the llumpires maillist archives at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/32721
> >
> > As an aside, you also replied to my own email inquiry at around
the same
> > time that if the new 4.04 was adopted by a league, then that
would render
> > 3.03 inapplicable, except for 3.03(3) regarding pitchers
returning to the
> > mound.
> >
> > Yesterday, another Little League umpire, Kevin Hunter, reported
to the
> > llumpires list that you had responded to a similar query
concerning the
> > interaction of 3.03 and 4.04 with an interpretation that
contradicts your
> > previous (11/01) statement.  Here is a link to Kevin's message
for your
> > review:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/52223
> >
> > As you might expect, Kevin's report of your interpretation has
many of us
> > scratching our heads, wondering why the interpretation has
changed when
> > there has been no actual rule change.  Some of us are speculating
there
> may
> > have been some kind of miscommunication in the way the question
was asked,
> > or something.  Regardless, many of us on the list would be very
> appreciative
> > of your clarifying Little League's "official" interpretation on
whether
> 3.03
> > (except 3.03(3)) are applicable or not when a league adopts
continuous
> > batting order per 4.04.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave Hensley
> > Dallas, TX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with
Little
> League Baseball, Inc.
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
permission
> for off-list use.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Well done, Dave.  Just the right tone of obsequiousness.

TG
CA - D3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hensley" <dhensley@...>
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:32 AM
Subject: [llumpires] FW: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact
on 3.03


> Following is my inquiry, Andy's response, and my reply to his reply, which
> atttempted to assuage his apparent pique at us gol-derned uppity Internet
> umpires.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: Andy Konyar
> Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt response.  For whatever reason, perhaps time
> constraints, Kevin elected not to email you directly but suggested that
> another listmember might request such clarification.  The Yahoo Groups
list
> of Little League umpires has 400 members, and we take your concern about
the
> risk of distorted information very much to heart.  We try to be very
> diligent in documenting and accurately quoting our sources - League UIC's,
> District UIC's, regional instructors, all the way up to the grand poobah
> himself :), in particular when we are discussing and attempting to
reconcile
> apparently contradictory information.
>
> Again, thank you for the clarification and I hope all is well in
> Williamsport.
>
> Dave Hensley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Konyar [mailto:akonyar@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:15 AM
> To: dhensley@...
> Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03
>
>
> First let me say that if Kevin wants an interpretation from me he/she
should
> contact me himself.  When things are fed through a 3rd party it tends to
get
> distorted somewhat.
> That being said, nothing got distorted except me.  I talked to a gentlemen
> that works with Kevin and told him/her the wrong answer.  I emailed that
> gentlemen yesterday morning with my apologies and the correct
> interpretation.  If the continuous batting order is used 3.03 becomes
> inapplicable (your word, I can't even spell it).
> Sorry for any confusion and will pay attention more in the future.
> Andy Konyar
> Umpire in Chief
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:32 AM
> To: Andy Konyar
> Subject: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03
>
> Dear Andy,
>
> A couple of years ago when the new rule 4.04 was introduced, allowing
> leagues to adopt a "bat the roster" or "continuous batting order" rule for
> majors division, a Little League umpire named Clay Berry sent you an email
> requesting clarification of the new rule, and how it was to impact rule
> 3.03, which governs starter re-entry.  Your email response to Clay at that
> time clearly established the interpretation that if a league adopts 4.04,
> then the provisions of 3.03 (except 3.03(3) which prohibits a pitcher from
> returning to the mound after being removed) were rendered inapplicable.
> Clay presented several hypothetical scenarios to gain understanding of how
> the rule was to be interpreted; your answers clearly endorsed the idea
that
> if 4.04 was operative, "free defensive substitutions" could be made at any
> time (as 4.04 explicitly says) without any requirement for considering
> whether a player being replaced in a defensive position has played 6
> consecutive defensive outs, as rule 3.03 would require.
>
> For your reference, your answers to Clay's inquiry in November, 2001, can
be
> reviewed in the llumpires maillist archives at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/32721
>
> As an aside, you also replied to my own email inquiry at around the same
> time that if the new 4.04 was adopted by a league, then that would render
> 3.03 inapplicable, except for 3.03(3) regarding pitchers returning to the
> mound.
>
> Yesterday, another Little League umpire, Kevin Hunter, reported to the
> llumpires list that you had responded to a similar query concerning the
> interaction of 3.03 and 4.04 with an interpretation that contradicts your
> previous (11/01) statement.  Here is a link to Kevin's message for your
> review:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/52223
>
> As you might expect, Kevin's report of your interpretation has many of us
> scratching our heads, wondering why the interpretation has changed when
> there has been no actual rule change.  Some of us are speculating there
may
> have been some kind of miscommunication in the way the question was asked,
> or something.  Regardless, many of us on the list would be very
appreciative
> of your clarifying Little League's "official" interpretation on whether
3.03
> (except 3.03(3)) are applicable or not when a league adopts continuous
> batting order per 4.04.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Hensley
> Dallas, TX
>
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Following is my inquiry, Andy's response, and my reply to his reply, which
atttempted to assuage his apparent pique at us gol-derned uppity Internet
umpires.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@...]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:28 AM
To: Andy Konyar
Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03


Thank you for your prompt response.  For whatever reason, perhaps time
constraints, Kevin elected not to email you directly but suggested that
another listmember might request such clarification.  The Yahoo Groups list
of Little League umpires has 400 members, and we take your concern about the
risk of distorted information very much to heart.  We try to be very
diligent in documenting and accurately quoting our sources - League UIC's,
District UIC's, regional instructors, all the way up to the grand poobah
himself :), in particular when we are discussing and attempting to reconcile
apparently contradictory information.

Again, thank you for the clarification and I hope all is well in
Williamsport.

Dave Hensley

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Konyar [mailto:akonyar@...]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:15 AM
To: dhensley@...
Subject: RE: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03


First let me say that if Kevin wants an interpretation from me he/she should
contact me himself.  When things are fed through a 3rd party it tends to get
distorted somewhat.
That being said, nothing got distorted except me.  I talked to a gentlemen
that works with Kevin and told him/her the wrong answer.  I emailed that
gentlemen yesterday morning with my apologies and the correct
interpretation.  If the continuous batting order is used 3.03 becomes
inapplicable (your word, I can't even spell it).
Sorry for any confusion and will pay attention more in the future.
Andy Konyar
Umpire in Chief

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hensley [mailto:davehensley@...]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:32 AM
To: Andy Konyar
Subject: Different interpretations of 4.04 and it's impact on 3.03

Dear Andy,

A couple of years ago when the new rule 4.04 was introduced, allowing
leagues to adopt a "bat the roster" or "continuous batting order" rule for
majors division, a Little League umpire named Clay Berry sent you an email
requesting clarification of the new rule, and how it was to impact rule
3.03, which governs starter re-entry.  Your email response to Clay at that
time clearly established the interpretation that if a league adopts 4.04,
then the provisions of 3.03 (except 3.03(3) which prohibits a pitcher from
returning to the mound after being removed) were rendered inapplicable.
Clay presented several hypothetical scenarios to gain understanding of how
the rule was to be interpreted; your answers clearly endorsed the idea that
if 4.04 was operative, "free defensive substitutions" could be made at any
time (as 4.04 explicitly says) without any requirement for considering
whether a player being replaced in a defensive position has played 6
consecutive defensive outs, as rule 3.03 would require.

For your reference, your answers to Clay's inquiry in November, 2001, can be
reviewed in the llumpires maillist archives at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/32721

As an aside, you also replied to my own email inquiry at around the same
time that if the new 4.04 was adopted by a league, then that would render
3.03 inapplicable, except for 3.03(3) regarding pitchers returning to the
mound.

Yesterday, another Little League umpire, Kevin Hunter, reported to the
llumpires list that you had responded to a similar query concerning the
interaction of 3.03 and 4.04 with an interpretation that contradicts your
previous (11/01) statement.  Here is a link to Kevin's message for your
review:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llumpires/message/52223

As you might expect, Kevin's report of your interpretation has many of us
scratching our heads, wondering why the interpretation has changed when
there has been no actual rule change.  Some of us are speculating there may
have been some kind of miscommunication in the way the question was asked,
or something.  Regardless, many of us on the list would be very appreciative
of your clarifying Little League's "official" interpretation on whether 3.03
(except 3.03(3)) are applicable or not when a league adopts continuous
batting order per 4.04.

Thanks,

Dave Hensley
Dallas, TX

> From: Kevin Hunter [mailto:khunter@...]
>
> Anybody want to volunteer to call/email him and get the record
> straight?  It
> is possible that (a) there was some miscommunication between Andy and my
> SUIC or (b) that they've had a change of heart with respect to this or (c)
> this is all a bad dream from which I will eventually awake...

I have emailed a request for clarification of Andy's contradictory
interpretations.  I will report back his answer upon receipt.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004

Yes, this sounds familiar.  I've checked my archives and don't have a copy
of it.  We've/I've decided that we will not change the way we play it in
this district (free defensive "substitution") unless something is issued in
writing from LL.  It affects only regular season so it won't have any
negative affect on teams/players who advance to post season.

Nick Haluschak
WA Dist 4
Vancouver, WA



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Patrick [mailto:john.patrick@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:30
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: 4.04 with CBO vs. 3.03
>
>
> I dug through my notebook to see what I could find on this subject.
> This is the text from an email a member of this list posted here a
> couple of years ago.  Can't remember who it was and I didn't copy the
> header.  Nick, I seem to think it was from/to you, do you remember it?
>
> For what it's worth here it is.  Clear as mud.
>
> John
> CA D62 UIC
>
> 1) Do substitutes have to play 6 consecutive defensive outs
> before they can be replaced in the field?
>
> [Andy Konyar]  No, if they adopt the continuous batting order they
> can move the kids in and out, however, the batting order must be
> followed in its entirety and the kids still must get 6 defensive outs
> and 1 at bat during the course of a six inning game.
>
> 2) Could you alternate the same two players every other inning
> at the same position?  Two players, Dave and Tom, Dave plays SS first
> inning, Tom plays SS second inning, Dave plays SS third inning and so
> forth.  While not playing SS, Dave or Tom are on the bench.  Is this
> legal?
>
> [Andy Konyar]  Yes, that would be legal.
>
> 3) Do the outs have to be consecutive to meet MPR?
>
> [Andy Konyar]  No.
>
> 4) Are free substitutions allowed?
>
> [Andy Konyar]   Yes.
>
> 5) If a minimum of six defensive outs are played by each player
> before the end of the game has MPR been met?
>
> [Andy Konyar]   Yes, as long as the 1 at bat also took place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with
> Little League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
> permission for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you for Yahoo Groups archives!

Nick Haluschak
WA Dist 4
Vancouver, WA



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Patrick [mailto:john.patrick@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:07
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: 4.04 with CBO vs. 3.03
>
>
> Found it.  It was an email from Andy to Clay Berry.  Do a search for
> Message #32721.
>
> John
> CA D62 UIC
>
>
> --- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "John Patrick" <john.patrick@s...>
> wrote:
> > I dug through my notebook to see what I could find on this
> subject.
> > This is the text from an email a member of this list posted here a
> > couple of years ago.  Can't remember who it was and I didn't copy
> the
> > header.  Nick, I seem to think it was from/to you, do you remember
> it?
> >
> > For what it's worth here it is.  Clear as mud.
> >
> > John
> > CA D62 UIC
> >
> > 1) Do substitutes have to play 6 consecutive defensive outs
> > before they can be replaced in the field?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No, if they adopt the continuous batting order they
> > can move the kids in and out, however, the batting order must be
> > followed in its entirety and the kids still must get 6 defensive
> outs
> > and 1 at bat during the course of a six inning game.
> >
> > 2) Could you alternate the same two players every other inning
> > at the same position?  Two players, Dave and Tom, Dave plays SS
> first
> > inning, Tom plays SS second inning, Dave plays SS third inning and
> so
> > forth.  While not playing SS, Dave or Tom are on the bench.  Is
> this
> > legal?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  Yes, that would be legal.
> >
> > 3) Do the outs have to be consecutive to meet MPR?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No.
> >
> > 4) Are free substitutions allowed?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes.
> >
> > 5) If a minimum of six defensive outs are played by each player
> > before the end of the game has MPR been met?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes, as long as the 1 at bat also took place.
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with
> Little League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
> permission for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely hilarious!  My son and I are dying here!  Thanks for sharing.

Jeff
CA Dist 8

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hensley" <dhensley@...>
To: <llumpires@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: [llumpires] Offtopic, but you're going to like it


> This is hilarious.  Try it.
>
> > See if you have good mind control over your body.
> > This is left brain, right brain stuff.
> >
> > While sitting at your desk, lift your right foot off the floor
> > and make clockwise circles.
> >
> > Now, while doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your
> > right hand.
> >
> > Your foot will change direction and there's nothing you can do
> > about it.
> >
> > Try it.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004
>
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask permission
for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it will search way back.  You just have to keep
hitting "Next" to get to the next batch of search hits.  We know it
goes back at least until 1991. :>)

John
CA D62 UIC

--- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "Bowland, Craig" <cbowland@e...>
wrote:
> Off Topic:  Does yahoogroups only search 250 msgs at a time?  How
do you
> search the entire d/b at once?

Off Topic:  Does yahoogroups only search 250 msgs at a time?  How do you
search the entire d/b at once?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Patrick [mailto:john.patrick@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: 4.04 with CBO vs. 3.03
>
> Found it.  It was an email from Andy to Clay Berry.  Do a search for
> Message #32721.
>
> John
> CA D62 UIC
>
>
> --- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "John Patrick" <john.patrick@s...>
> wrote:
> > I dug through my notebook to see what I could find on this
> subject.
> > This is the text from an email a member of this list posted here a
> > couple of years ago.  Can't remember who it was and I didn't copy
> the
> > header.  Nick, I seem to think it was from/to you, do you remember
> it?
> >
> > For what it's worth here it is.  Clear as mud.
> >
> > John
> > CA D62 UIC
> >
> > 1) Do substitutes have to play 6 consecutive defensive outs
> > before they can be replaced in the field?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No, if they adopt the continuous batting order they
> > can move the kids in and out, however, the batting order must be
> > followed in its entirety and the kids still must get 6 defensive
> outs
> > and 1 at bat during the course of a six inning game.
> >
> > 2) Could you alternate the same two players every other inning
> > at the same position?  Two players, Dave and Tom, Dave plays SS
> first
> > inning, Tom plays SS second inning, Dave plays SS third inning and
> so
> > forth.  While not playing SS, Dave or Tom are on the bench.  Is
> this
> > legal?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  Yes, that would be legal.
> >
> > 3) Do the outs have to be consecutive to meet MPR?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No.
> >
> > 4) Are free substitutions allowed?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes.
> >
> > 5) If a minimum of six defensive outs are played by each player
> > before the end of the game has MPR been met?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes, as long as the 1 at bat also took place.
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
permission for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Here is the msg:

Here is the answer that I received from Andy regarding
4.04. I should have been more patient and added some
of your questions but failed to do so. As a result
though I do think it is clear as to how to apply this
rule.
clay
--- Andy Konyar <akonyar@l...> wrote:
> Subject: RE: Rule 4.04
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:04:30 -0500
> From: "Andy Konyar" <akonyar@l...>
> To: "Clay Berry" <parkaleo@y...>
>
> See my answers below and of course nice to hear from
> you.
> Andy
>
> > 1) Do substitutes have to play 6 consecutive
> defensive
> > outs before they can be replaced in the field?
> [Andy Konyar] No, if they adopt the continuous
> batting order
> the can move the kids in and out, however, the
> batting order must be
> followed in its entirety and the kids still must get
> 6 defensive outs
> and 1 at bat during the course of a six inning game.
>
> > 2) Could you alternate the same two player every
> other
> > inning at the same position? Two players, Dave and
> > Tom, Dave plays SS first inning, Tom plays SS
> second
> > inning, Dave plays SS third inning and so forth.
> While
> > not playing SS, Dave or Tom are on the bench. Is
> this
> > legal? [Andy Konyar] Yes, that would be legal.
> >
> > 3) Do the outs have to be consecutive to meet MPR?
> [Andy Konyar] No.
> > 4) Are free substitutions allowed?
> [Andy Konyar] Yes.
> > 5) If a minimum of six defensive outs are played
> by
> > each player before the end of the game has MPR
> been
> > meet? [Andy Konyar] Yes, as long as the 1 at bat
> also took place.
> >
> > Thank you for helping us with this issue.
> >
> > clay berry
> > ca d 33
> > umpire consultant


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Patrick [mailto:john.patrick@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [llumpires] Re: 4.04 with CBO vs. 3.03
>
> Found it.  It was an email from Andy to Clay Berry.  Do a search for
> Message #32721.
>
> John
> CA D62 UIC
>
>
> --- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, "John Patrick" <john.patrick@s...>
> wrote:
> > I dug through my notebook to see what I could find on this
> subject.
> > This is the text from an email a member of this list posted here a
> > couple of years ago.  Can't remember who it was and I didn't copy
> the
> > header.  Nick, I seem to think it was from/to you, do you remember
> it?
> >
> > For what it's worth here it is.  Clear as mud.
> >
> > John
> > CA D62 UIC
> >
> > 1) Do substitutes have to play 6 consecutive defensive outs
> > before they can be replaced in the field?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No, if they adopt the continuous batting order they
> > can move the kids in and out, however, the batting order must be
> > followed in its entirety and the kids still must get 6 defensive
> outs
> > and 1 at bat during the course of a six inning game.
> >
> > 2) Could you alternate the same two players every other inning
> > at the same position?  Two players, Dave and Tom, Dave plays SS
> first
> > inning, Tom plays SS second inning, Dave plays SS third inning and
> so
> > forth.  While not playing SS, Dave or Tom are on the bench.  Is
> this
> > legal?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  Yes, that would be legal.
> >
> > 3) Do the outs have to be consecutive to meet MPR?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]  No.
> >
> > 4) Are free substitutions allowed?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes.
> >
> > 5) If a minimum of six defensive outs are played by each player
> > before the end of the game has MPR been met?
> >
> > [Andy Konyar]   Yes, as long as the 1 at bat also took place.
>
>
>
> --
> The Little League Umpires Mailing List is not affiliated with Little
League Baseball, Inc.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to: llumpires-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Please respect the content of other people's messages and ask
permission for off-list use.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

This is hilarious.  Try it.

> See if you have good mind control over your body.
> This is left brain, right brain stuff.
>
> While sitting at your desk, lift your right foot off the floor
> and make clockwise circles.
>
> Now, while doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your
> right hand.
>
> Your foot will change direction and there's nothing you can do
> about it.
>
> Try it.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004

> From: John Patrick [mailto:john.patrick@...]
> For what it's worth here it is.  Clear as mud.

It's a lot clearer than mud - it's crystal clear.  Crystal clear that Andy
K. has done a high-dive, triple somersault half gainer with a full twist
flip-flop-belly-flop on this rule.

Thank you for the research John.  As I mentioned, I also have an email from
Andy that completely endorses the "free substitution means free
substitution" interpretation.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004