this is the thread that will never die. it has taken on the epic proportions of a political argument that cannot be "won" by either side.
Unless i'm mistaken, it sounds like the riseball school of thought believes that getting away with repeated rule violations is cheating.
On the other hand, the DmystifieD school disagrees in that if a violation is not called, it's not a violation.
obbay's analogy- If a batter has no part of their body in the strike zone, is hit with a pitch and the umpire calls it a strike. RB would say the pitcher did not throw a strike where DmD would say she did.
intent also seems to be an issue where some say cheating only exists with intent. Barnhill either knows she's cheating or she doesn't.
I learned in Poli Sci 101 that ignorance of the law (or in this case rule) is not a valid excuse. (this referring to the player being ignorant of the violation)
I believe that any pitcher and her family, coaches and team would never change anything as long as the pitcher is riding on a wave of great success, even if it was brought about by umpires failure or political/marketing reasons.
Changing the rule in response to allowing a player to be exempt from that rule doesn't sound like evolution of the game, it sounds like CYA from past failures.
In strictest sense I would have to disagree "that getting away with repeated rule violations is cheating"
Cheat is defined as follows:
Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.
Using that definition it appears that repeated rule violations are not required. As to the question of intent I would agree that it may not required. That said, Criminal Science 101 taught us that intent is certainly an aggravating factor. By adding the criteria of intent it actually raises the bar for calling someone a cheat. In the case of Barnhill using any definition how would you not consider her a cheat? If she were to somehow be held accountable to follow the rules, is there anyone on the board who truly believes she would at a minimum be rendered less effective in the circle? So I ask why is she not worthy to be described as a cheat? Of course other than the fact she is an amateur athlete.
I must however respectfully disagree with the following:
I believe that any pitcher and her family, coaches and team would never change anything as long as the pitcher is riding on a wave of great success, even if it was brought about by umpires failure or political/marketing reasons.
While that may fit Barnhill, her parents, Walton, Rocha, and the Gator Softball Team it is certainly not a universal truth. Until the last person with a modicum of honor and integrity is driven from the game, that will never be a true statement. Speaking as a coach, regardless of the situation you will either pitch legally or you will not pitch for me.
Last edited: