Patch lawsuit re-visited: A RATIONAL basis for a verdict

[skipper5]

To return for a moment to the Brandon Patch lawsuit, which ended in a "failure to warn" verdict against H & B that seems irrational to most of us:

If the bat involved in the Patch incident was in fact a BESR-certified bat, here's the case I would have made against the bat-maker:

A. Minimization of risk was the primary stated reason of the NCAA for enacting the BESR standard. NCAA documents prove that, first and foremost, BESR was a bat-safety std.

B. From the outset, bat-makers competed to exceed the original intentions and performance thresholds of the BESR bat-safety test. [see note below]

C. Therefore, the bat that generated Patch's injury was intentionally designed to exceed a safety std. intended to curb exit velocity and increase response times for pitchers.

D. BESR bats should be affixed with following warning label: "Warning: This bat has been designed to exceed the BESR bat-safety test."
_________________________________

Note from "B." above: From the outset, bat-makers sought to out-fox and out-perform the BESR bat-safety std. '"Meanwhile, George Manning of Louisville Slugger openly admits that 'We became aware of how they were going to test, and our goal was to satisfy what players wanted and still pass the test.' .... 'The test is flawed,' Manning says, 'but it isn't clear to them [the NCAA] that the test is flawed.' " " [ESPN.com, "Bat controversy lingers over NCAA", 3/19/00]

http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/0329/453294.html

[BMH]

You wouldn't have been able to make that argument.

The plaintiff's attorney filed a motion that was sustained by the court that there would be no mention of BPF, BESR or BBCOR before we went to trial. So we could not say our bats met a safety standard.

Just for clarification, George Manning was talking about the machine invented by Steve Baum (Baum Hitting Machine), not the BESR. At the time the NCAA was using his machine to administer the test and it was flawed.

[RKKay]

I like your argument, but still feel that it should reasonably fail in that the person intended to read the warning is the batter, not the fielder. Perhaps a third party beneficiary argument could be made, but I still think that the lawsuit should have been based upon a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, straight negligence or gross negligence. The bat manufacturer knew, or reasonably should have known, the purpose of the standards set forth and its intent to protect fielders. Nevertheless, they intentionally manufactured bats which could circumvent the regulations. As such, they should be liable. That's my two cents on a better theory of the lawsuit.

[skipper5]

A bat company pres. wrote:

"Using the variables in different combinations can create a bat that performs better on the field while passing the test.... The job of the organizing bodies is to level the playing field by providing rules and the job of the designer is to beat (not break) the rule in a way that give the player the edge they are looking for and stay within the rules."

"The problem (or advantage, depending which side of the fence you are on) is that the administrators are not technically apt enough to stay ahead of the design engineers."

IOW, a bat designer's goal is to surpass bat-safety performance regulations, but without getting caught (which would keep the bat off the market).

I despise lawsuits, bubblewrap, etc. But I'm beginning to see a legitimate basis for batted-ball litigation. Parents give their informed consent for their sons' participation in at-risk activities.

Bat-makers intentionally design their best bats to out-perform (on the field) bat-safety regulations (that bats conform to in the lab). Are most parents of pitchers aware of this? I doubt it. Therefore, properly informed consent is in most instances lacking.

If my own son got clocked by a batted-ball, I would have no moral basis whatsoever for a lawsuit. My consent is fully informed.

[slicew]

My car is designed to drive speeds in excess of all posted speed limits. My car has no warning system (or stickers) for letting other drivers know this. If I am speeding, hit another car and kill the driver, is the car company at fault?

[BMH]

Does this "Bat Company President" have a name?

[skipper5]

Originally Posted by BMH

Does this "Bat Company President" have a name?

Steven Anderson.

[skipper5]

Originally Posted by slicew

My car is designed to drive speeds in excess of all posted speed limits. My car has no warning system (or stickers) for letting other drivers know this. If I am speeding, hit another car and kill the driver, is the car company at fault?

If the car-maker intentionally broke a rule intended to cap your car's maximum mph for safety reasons, then a reasonable case could be made that the car-maker was at fault.

The automobile lobby, however, would set up a web-site that maintained that all cars go the same speed, and that there is no correlation between mph and the frequency and severity of auto accidents.

[omg]

Originally Posted by RKKay

I like your argument, but still feel that it should reasonably fail in that the person intended to read the warning is the batter, not the fielder. Perhaps a third party beneficiary argument could be made, but I still think that the lawsuit should have been based upon a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, straight negligence or gross negligence. The bat manufacturer knew, or reasonably should have known, the purpose of the standards set forth and its intent to protect fielders. Nevertheless, they intentionally manufactured bats which could circumvent the regulations. As such, they should be liable. That's my two cents on a better theory of the lawsuit.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress??? Explain it-I don't see it.

[omg]

Sometimes I get complaints from parents when I run sports activities and ask them to sign a nastily worded waiver. So I back off and put something more pleasant.

But after reading the baloney about this bat suit and about a recent little league sliding suit I am probably going to go back to the nasty wording which basically says:

"Your child might die doing this activity and you waive you're right to sue me."

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by omg

Intentional infliction of emotional distress??? Explain it-I don't see it.

Let me preface this by saying I absolutely abhor lawsuits and believe that suing a bat manufacturer for injuries suffered during competition is tenuous at best. Nevertheless, as bats get hotter and hotter, I feel that safety is increasingly becoming harder to ensure. I understand that the world is run by profit margins, but feel that Little League Baseball and other organizations, as well as bat manufacturers need to step back and evaluate the dangers involved, irrespective of the money to be made. This is unlikely and, with regard to public corporations, contrary to the duties of the company to the shareholders. But it is a problem.

From West.net:

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are:

(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;

(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;

(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and

(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

Because #1 is the biggest stretch, I will take that last.

#2: It is well known among bad manufacturers that the BESR parameters were put in place for the protection of fielders by putting limitations on exit speed. It would be easy to establish that the bat companies intend to manufacture bats to technically passed the test, but violate the intent of the regulations. This is an action in reckless disregard of the probability of causing the consequent emotional distress.

#3: A given when a child is killed

#4: With expert witnesses, it can easily be argued that, if the bat were not "hot" in violation of the regulations, the child would have had enough reaction time to avoid the injury involved.

#1: An argument could certainly be made that intentionally circumventing safety rules to make a more desirable bat is outrageous. Nevertheless, whether a jury could buy intentional infliction of emotional distress or not, they could easily go for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

[omg]

Is there such a thing as negligent infliction of emotional distress?

[skipper5]

Originally Posted by omg

Sometimes I get complaints from parents when I run sports activities and ask them to sign a nastily worded waiver.

Yeah, I know I'd get some feedback if I wrote anything even remotely nasty to the parents. I'm pretty careful in my wording of emails, etc., to my teams.

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by omg

Intentional infliction of emotional distress??? Explain it-I don't see it.

I should add that, even though is a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress stands a much lesser chance of winning, plaintiffs' attorneys have a duty to their client include any reasonable cause of action in the complaint that they file, and I guarantee you intentional infliction of emotional distress would be included in a complaint under the circumstances. The reason you will often see intentional torts in complaints is that it opens the door for punitive damages. If the jury awards punitive damages, the award to the plaintiff can be astronomical.

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by omg

Is there such a thing as negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Yes. Most any complaint that has a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress will also have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, as is much easier to establish negligent infliction.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by RKKay

Nevertheless, as bats get hotter and hotter, I feel that safety is increasingly becoming harder to ensure.

Ensure? Do you believe there’s any sport devised by man that “ENSURES” safety?

I understand that the world is run by profit margins, but feel that Little League Baseball and other organizations, as well as bat manufacturers need to step back and evaluate the dangers involved, irrespective of the money to be made.

Maybe I don’t quite understand what it means to be a nonprofit organization. I understand that it doesn’t mean they can’t make money, but I wasn’t aware LLI was being run with an eye to profit margins.

This is unlikely and, with regard to public corporations, contrary to the duties of the company to the shareholders. But it is a problem.

I guess I’m missing something else. It sounds as though you’re saying public safety isn’t a duty of a company. Sounds a bit off the mark to me.

From West.net: . . .

Are you a lawyer giving a legal opinion, or are you just giving an opinion?

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by scorekeeper

Ensure? Do you believe there’s any sport devised by man that “ENSURES” safety?

Although no sport has been "devised" to ensure its players' safety, most every league encounter will make a claim that they do everything they can to "ensure the safety of the players." Furthermore, I believe it is irresponsible to foster behavior which endangers the players.

Maybe I don’t quite understand what it means to be a nonprofit organization. I understand that it doesn’t mean they can’t make money, but I wasn’t aware LLI was being run with an eye to profit margins.

Whether Little League Baseball is nonprofit or not, are you telling me that no one within that organization benefits financially? Moreover, last time I checked, Louisville Slugger was not a nonprofit.

I guess I’m missing something else. It sounds as though you’re saying public safety isn’t a duty of a company. Sounds a bit off the mark to me.

You misinterpreted my statement. It is the obligation of the CEO of a public corporation to maximize the profits of its shareholders within legal parameters. Technically, the bat companies not only are not violating the law, they're following the letter of the regulations. Under those circumstances it cannot be argued that they are compromising public safety.

Are you a lawyer giving a legal opinion, or are you just giving an opinion?

I no longer practice. However, my personal opinions will obviously be influenced by my experience with the law. Furthermore, if you read the post to which I am responding you will see why I quoted west.com. I am in no way giving anyone legal advice and to construe my comments in any other fashion would be erroneous.

Do you have any opinions on this matter or are you just interested in mine?

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by RKKay

Although no sport has been "devised" to ensure its players' safety, most every league encounter will make a claim that they do everything they can to "ensure the safety of the players." Furthermore, I believe it is irresponsible to foster behavior which endangers the players.

So are you saying that every claim made by every person and entity should be taken literally? I too believe its irresponsible to “foster behavior which endangers the players”, but evidently I have a different view of danger than you.

Whether Little League Baseball is nonprofit or not, are you telling me that no one within that organization benefits financially? Moreover, last time I checked, Louisville Slugger was not a nonprofit.

Defining one’s pay as payment for work given, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Of course, if you’re saying no one at LLI earns their pay, I guess I’d have to say they benefit financially.

I made sure I didn’t say anything about LS. Why did you?

You misinterpreted my statement. It is the obligation of the CEO of a public corporation to maximize the profits of its shareholders within legal parameters. Technically, the bat companies not only are not violating the law, they're following the letter of the regulations. Under those circumstances it cannot be argued that they are compromising public safety.

WOW! I always understood that a company or person couldn’t use making profit as a reason to disregard the public safety, since it was a legal parameter

I no longer practice. However, my personal opinions will obviously be influenced by my experience with the law. Furthermore, if you read the post to which I am responding you will see why I quoted west.com. I am in no way giving anyone legal advice and to construe my comments in any other fashion would be erroneous.

I was asking because I was trying to ascertain whether you’re experience was digging ditches, writing software, or legal. Its unfortunate, but people’s opinions are in part judged by their bona fides.

I saw what you were responding to, but I’m still trying to figure out what you’re saying. I get the strong feeling you want to encourage people to take legal action, and are attempting to guide them in how to do that.

Do you have any opinions on this matter or are you just interested in mine?

I’ve pretty much stated my opinions over and over, probably hundreds of times on this topic, here and in other similar forums. I would like to see people take responsibility for their actions and stand up for their principles. If you(generic) believe pitching or playing the infield under certain rules is putting your child in harm’s way, you shouldn’t allow him to do that. But, if you do, you should at least have the stones to do everything reasonable to get those rules altered.

That might be simplistic and naive, but I honestly get pretty fed up with people who give their informed consent for their child to be put in what they believes to be harm’s way, then want everyone else to say the bats are a bad thing so they can feel good about themselves. What a crock of crap!

All that’s happening, is that people are arguing over the definition of dangerous. Rather than attempt to get it defined so some substantive compromise could be accomplished, all that happens is a bunch of hollering from both sides.

[omg]

There is the bat. But there is also the supplements. IMHO these are about equal in determining danger from a batted ball with aluminum.

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by scorekeeper

So are you saying that every claim made by every person and entity should be taken literally? I too believe its irresponsible to “foster behavior which endangers the players”, but evidently I have a different view of danger than you.

I am absolutely NOT saying that every claim made by every person and entity should be taken literally. However, when an entity claims that it is placing the players' safety first, and that entity ignores efforts to impose more stringent standards regarding exit speed, it gets a bit frustrating.

Defining one’s pay as payment for work given, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Of course, if you’re saying no one at LLI earns their pay, I guess I’d have to say they benefit financially.

I made sure I didn’t say anything about LS. Why did you?

I think it is a bit naïve to assume that there are no other financial benefits. As far as LS is concerned, they were the subject of the lawsuit, so why should I not mention their name?

WOW! I always understood that a company or person couldn’t use making profit as a reason to disregard the public safety, since it was a legal parameter

I'm not sure what you mean. If a bat passes a safety test, no further duty is owed. However, if a president of a bat company is quoted saying what it said in one of the posts in this thread, I am very disappointed that he chose to follow the letter rather than the intent of the regulation.

I was asking because I was trying to ascertain whether you’re experience was digging ditches, writing software, or legal. Its unfortunate, but people’s opinions are in part judged by their bona fides.

True.

I saw what you were responding to, but I’m still trying to figure out what you’re saying. I get the strong feeling you want to encourage people to take legal action, and are attempting to guide them in how to do that.

What I am saying is that I disagree entirely with the verdict of the case in question, but that I could have understood the verdict had there been different causes of action asserted, based upon the facts as I know them. I am sorry that your interpretations of my posts with that I would in any way encourage a lawsuit under these circumstances. I feel that the parents know what they are getting into when they sign their children up to play baseball and allowed him to play infield positions. They are weighing the risks. My comments regarding causes of action were purely hypothetical as to how the verdict could be rationalized. The bat companies have no duty beyond needing a safety requirements set forth and whatever legal parameters there are. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that safety is given short shrift when it comes to hot bats and they're being allowed by various governing entities. I have made my own efforts to convince some entities to not allow such bats, to no avail. These efforts in no way involved legal action, and I know time would I even consider doing so. That being said, I would recommend carefully analyzing what is said by others and how those words can be interpreted before making accusations which are baseless, as such accusations are insulting, to say the least. Next time you want to make such comments, I would appreciate your sending them to me in a PM or via e-mail.

I’ve pretty much stated my opinions over and over, probably hundreds of times on this topic, here and in other similar forums. I would like to see people take responsibility for their actions and stand up for their principles. If you(generic) believe pitching or playing the infield under certain rules is putting your child in harm’s way, you shouldn’t allow him to do that. But, if you do, you should at least have the stones to do everything reasonable to get those rules altered.

I agree.

That might be simplistic and naive, but I honestly get pretty fed up with people who give their informed consent for their child to be put in what they believes to be harm’s way, then want everyone else to say the bats are a bad thing so they can feel good about themselves. What a crock of crap!

I agree that the parents have assumed the risk of injury to their child and should not sue.

All that’s happening, is that people are arguing over the definition of dangerous. Rather than attempt to get it defined so some substantive compromise could be accomplished, all that happens is a bunch of hollering from both sides.

Perhaps that is why he no ground is being gained.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by RKKay

I am absolutely NOT saying that every claim made by every person and entity should be taken literally. However, when an entity claims that it is placing the players' safety first, and that entity ignores efforts to impose more stringent standards regarding exit speed, it gets a bit frustrating.

Sure it does, but that doesn’t mean that they’re being some sinister or disingenuous. It more than likely it just means they don’t agree with you 100%, right down the line.

I think it is a bit naïve to assume that there are no other financial benefits. As far as LS is concerned, they were the subject of the lawsuit, so why should I not mention their name?

I may be a lot of things, but naïve isn’t something normally said about me. I’m pretty sure there are a few financial benefits to being a lawyer too. To many people that makes them seem less than honorable, and I’m afraid the same kind of logic takes place when people assume questionable intentions on the part of people working for LLI.

Following that thought for a moment, why isn’t anyone taking any kind of shots at CR, USSSA, or any of the other organizations who have done literally nothing ON THEIR OWN for the safety of players. The best example I can think of is pitch counts.

Didn’t say you shouldn’t mention their name. Just said I wasn’t referring to them.

I'm not sure what you mean. If a bat passes a safety test, no further duty is owed.

I took what you said to mean that their primary duty was a fiduciary one that maximized returns for shareholders. To me, the primary duty is the public safety, otherwise they’d hopefully shut down.

However, if a president of a bat company is quoted saying what it said in one of the posts in this thread, I am very disappointed that he chose to follow the letter rather than the intent of the regulation.

Don’t be offended, but please spare me the moral indignation of any corporate officer in America expressing the sentiments the epitomize the capitalistic system. I daresay there are a few folks in baseball who are not just willing to beat the rules, but to break them as well, and that might even be true of some of those working in the legal profession.

What I am saying is that I disagree entirely with the verdict of the case in question, but that I could have understood the verdict had there been different causes of action asserted, based upon the facts as I know them. I am sorry that your interpretations of my posts with that I would in any way encourage a lawsuit under these circumstances. I feel that the parents know what they are getting into when they sign their children up to play baseball and allowed him to play infield positions. They are weighing the risks. My comments regarding causes of action were purely hypothetical as to how the verdict could be rationalized. The bat companies have no duty beyond needing a safety requirements set forth and whatever legal parameters there are.

Well, isn’t that interesting? I wish you would have stated that prior to making the post you did.

Nevertheless, it is my opinion that safety is given short shrift when it comes to hot bats and they're being allowed by various governing entities.

Could that be because you’re idea of what’s safe and what someone else’s is, are at odds? I know I often get accused of not believing the bats today aren’t capable of higher performance, thus being less safe, but that isn’t at all true. I know that in general they perform better, and for some portion of them, they perform very much better.

But, while I happen to believe they are to some degree more dangerous, I try to keep in mind that not every non-wood bat is one of the super hot variety, and not every player has access to one either. I prefer to try to keep things in perspective so that I can make at least semi-intelligent decisions.

Intellectually I know that a non-wood bat has the potential to hit a baseball hard enough to kill a human being, given a specific set of circumstances. But, I also know the same is true for wood. So, while I know there is some higher degree of potential danger in non-wood, I don’t believe that additional degree of danger is enough for me to get ulcers worrying about it.

What I do get ulcers about though, is that I believe the performance of SOME non-wood bats is enough that it skews the balance of the offence vs the defense in a baseball game, and that can easily be proved/disproved with empirical data. To me that threatens the integrity of the game, much more than the safety of the players.

I have made my own efforts to convince some entities to not allow such bats, to no avail. These efforts in no way involved legal action, and I know time would I even consider doing so.

That’s wonderful, and I’ve done the very same thing over the course of the last 15 years. I wrote my 1st letter in ’94 and made my 1st phone call in ’95, and it was a steady stream until about 3 years ago. That’s what people have to do to effect changes.

That being said, I would recommend carefully analyzing what is said by others and how those words can be interpreted before making accusations which are baseless, as such accusations are insulting, to say the least. Next time you want to make such comments, I would appreciate your sending them to me in a PM or via e-mail.

Well, my only defense is, you aren’t dealing with a bunch of legal minds here, so you’ll have to understand that the words you choose will be interpreted by may people of many varied backgrounds, and its likely there will be at least a few who misinterpret the meaning you intended. If you were insulted, I’m sorry because that wasn’t my intent.

I agree that the parents have assumed the risk of injury to their child and should not sue.

Sadly, that isn’t the lay of the moral landscape in today’s world. While it isn’t true for all people, its true for enough to make things miserable for everyone.

Perhaps that is why he no ground is being gained.

I sincerely believe that is the problem. Everyone seems to be looking for answers to cure symptoms rather than actually define the problem so cures could be found for it. But there is one thing for sure. Those organizations that have so far refused to come into the modern day and accept that new standards are not just needed, but would really be to the benefit of all, are keeping things so mucked up, I don’t see any resolution in sight.

What we’re really talking about here is the rules, and that the different baseball organizations all feel the need to have different ones. While no one other than MLB in the entire world plays by the Official Baseball Rules, everyone uses them as the basis for their rule set. Sadly, there’s nothing about non-wood bats in OBR because only wood is allowed. That means every other organization can develop their own rules, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

If those organizations really wanted to make a huge leap forward for the game, they’d get together and decide on a basic rule set, and make sure there was a bat standard in it, so everyone would be using the same one.

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by scorekeeper

Sure it does, but that doesn’t mean that they’re being some sinister or disingenuous. It more than likely it just means they don’t agree with you 100%, right down the line.



I may be a lot of things, but naïve isn’t something normally said about me. I’m pretty sure there are a few financial benefits to being a lawyer too. To many people that makes them seem less than honorable, and I’m afraid the same kind of logic takes place when people assume questionable intentions on the part of people working for LLI.

Following that thought for a moment, why isn’t anyone taking any kind of shots at CR, USSSA, or any of the other organizations who have done literally nothing ON THEIR OWN for the safety of players. The best example I can think of is pitch counts.

Didn’t say you shouldn’t mention their name. Just said I wasn’t referring to them.



I took what you said to mean that their primary duty was a fiduciary one that maximized returns for shareholders. To me, the primary duty is the public safety, otherwise they’d hopefully shut down.



Don’t be offended, but please spare me the moral indignation of any corporate officer in America expressing the sentiments the epitomize the capitalistic system. I daresay there are a few folks in baseball who are not just willing to beat the rules, but to break them as well, and that might even be true of some of those working in the legal profession.



Well, isn’t that interesting? I wish you would have stated that prior to making the post you did.



Could that be because you’re idea of what’s safe and what someone else’s is, are at odds? I know I often get accused of not believing the bats today aren’t capable of higher performance, thus being less safe, but that isn’t at all true. I know that in general they perform better, and for some portion of them, they perform very much better.

But, while I happen to believe they are to some degree more dangerous, I try to keep in mind that not every non-wood bat is one of the super hot variety, and not every player has access to one either. I prefer to try to keep things in perspective so that I can make at least semi-intelligent decisions.

Intellectually I know that a non-wood bat has the potential to hit a baseball hard enough to kill a human being, given a specific set of circumstances. But, I also know the same is true for wood. So, while I know there is some higher degree of potential danger in non-wood, I don’t believe that additional degree of danger is enough for me to get ulcers worrying about it.

What I do get ulcers about though, is that I believe the performance of SOME non-wood bats is enough that it skews the balance of the offence vs the defense in a baseball game, and that can easily be proved/disproved with empirical data. To me that threatens the integrity of the game, much more than the safety of the players.



That’s wonderful, and I’ve done the very same thing over the course of the last 15 years. I wrote my 1st letter in ’94 and made my 1st phone call in ’95, and it was a steady stream until about 3 years ago. That’s what people have to do to effect changes.



Well, my only defense is, you aren’t dealing with a bunch of legal minds here, so you’ll have to understand that the words you choose will be interpreted by may people of many varied backgrounds, and its likely there will be at least a few who misinterpret the meaning you intended. If you were insulted, I’m sorry because that wasn’t my intent.



Sadly, that isn’t the lay of the moral landscape in today’s world. While it isn’t true for all people, its true for enough to make things miserable for everyone.



I sincerely believe that is the problem. Everyone seems to be looking for answers to cure symptoms rather than actually define the problem so cures could be found for it. But there is one thing for sure. Those organizations that have so far refused to come into the modern day and accept that new standards are not just needed, but would really be to the benefit of all, are keeping things so mucked up, I don’t see any resolution in sight.

What we’re really talking about here is the rules, and that the different baseball organizations all feel the need to have different ones. While no one other than MLB in the entire world plays by the Official Baseball Rules, everyone uses them as the basis for their rule set. Sadly, there’s nothing about non-wood bats in OBR because only wood is allowed. That means every other organization can develop their own rules, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

If those organizations really wanted to make a huge leap forward for the game, they’d get together and decide on a basic rule set, and make sure there was a bat standard in it, so everyone would be using the same one.

The more we go back and forth, the more it becomes evident that our opinions are not so different from each other. We differ more in the details, and at some level, we are both guilty of some misinterpretation and some ambiguity in our statements. I appreciate your comments.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by RKKay

The more we go back and forth, the more it becomes evident that our opinions are not so different from each other. We differ more in the details, and at some level, we are both guilty of some misinterpretation and some ambiguity in our statements. I appreciate your comments.

I agree, and I appreciate your comments as well.