PTT體育區 / MLB (美國職棒/大聯盟)

Re: [外電] Buchholz was cheating, but that's okay

看板MLB (美國職棒/大聯盟)作者 (希望你在這裡)時間13年前 (2013/05/12 23:15), 編輯推噓9(10推 1噓 67→)
留言78則, 8人參與, 最新討論串4/8 (看更多)
→
05/11 22:17,
人家規定只能抹bare hand or hands...
05/11 22:17
→
05/11 22:18,
你的閱讀可能要加強...
05/11 22:18
→
05/11 22:18,
may use =/= 只能
05/11 22:18
→
05/11 22:18,
是“可以”
05/11 22:18
The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt not more than twelve inches long from top to bottom and not more than eight inches wide across the palm, measured from the base of the thumb crotch to the outer edge of the mitt. 所以依大大的指示1.13這條不是只能戴不超過12吋長的手套, 這條規則充其量只是建議 而已? 不是規定來著 所以1.13條, 第一句寫了這麼長還蠻無聊的, 建議而已連長度都在建議, 反正大大都可以 自動無視了。只有裡頭寫不能作的才算數啦...may個半天, 反正就自動無視就行了... 所以規則裡規定一些may wear... may protest...都不叫規定, 都叫作建議了, 都可以 自動無視... 原來如此, 筆記.... A pitcher may use the rosin bag for the purpose of applying rosin to his bare hand or hands. 還是大大看到上面叫規定, 下面這條便叫建議用法了。 如果這不叫規定, 這建議還挺無聊的... bare hand就好還偏偏要bare hand & hands. 有興趣去看看下面Bleacher report的說法... http://0rz.tw/FNzQW ※ 引述《RogerWaters (希望你在這裡)》之銘言： : 推 Carmelo3:有夠沒品 還開心就好咧 05/11 10:27 : → Carmelo3:RogerWaters大大沒有興趣翻譯這篇 05/11 10:28 : 推 amyer:RogerWaters:看來案情真的是一點都不單純... 05/11 11:06 : 既然有人指名要翻譯 : 這篇也來自HardballTalk : http://0rz.tw/5S1IP : 即便就算有90%的投手都在用防曬油加滑石粉, 來增加握球... : 也不會證明用防曬油就是可以的, 就是不違法的, 那要不要下次放一罐在投手丘旁 : 那塗凡士林在手上, 可不可以呢?? : 所以Hayhurst說的用防曬油不是幾乎要破案了。 : 但問題依照棒球規則 : 用異物到球上就是有問題的。 : 就算90%的投手都用了, 那沒用的10%呢? : Jeff Passan的報導表示: "投手們不認為這是作弊??" : 問題是那是用的投手們認為不是在作弊, 但依棒球規則呢??? 用異物就是犯規 : 如果大家認為用防曬油不是作弊, 要不要請記者問他Buchholz手臂那團亮亮的是什麼, : 他要不要公開承認就是防曬油呢? : 如果Jeff Passan說的都是對的, 怎麼不敢列名是那些投手在用防曬油呢??? : http://0rz.tw/5S1IP : 90 percent of pitchers are using spray-on sunscreen, Buchholz-style : Craig Calcaterra May 8, 2013, 3:30 PM EDT : Jeff Passan picks up the thread Dirk Hayhurst and Jack Morris pulled last : week regarding Clay Buchholz‘s start against the Jays and accusations that : he was doctoring the ball: : Two veteran pitchers and one source close to the Red Sox told Yahoo! Sports : that about 90 percent of major league pitchers use some form of spray-on : sunscreen – almost always BullFrog brand – that when combined with powdered : rosin gives them a far superior grip on the ball … one source close to the : Red Sox confirmed the team’s pitchers almost all rely on sunscreen for : better grip on finicky balls, particularly in cold, bad weather. : It seems almost certain, based on what Passan’s sources are telling him, : that yes, Buchholz was applying a foreign substance to the ball last week. : But it also seems certain, based on what Passan’s sources are telling him, : that almost all pitchers do it and, really, no one cares. : Which I think does matter when talk about the nature of all of this. How much : it matters I don’t know. If the Blue Jays were willing to look the other way : — and they were, probably because their pitchers do the same damn thing — I : ’m not sure where the mandate to start inspecting every pitcher’s arm comes : from, even if applying Bull Frog to the ball is a violation of a clear rule. : Of course, I’ve been trying to tell people for years that, while against the : rules, players using PEDs was maybe something more complex than anti-PED gang : was willing to admit given its pervasive and open use. Doesn’t make it : right. Doesn’t make it legal. But does provide some context with which : reasonable people should maybe use in order to filter their outrage and with : which to determine just how sharp those pitchforks should be. : So: any of those folks willing to take the “I don’t care if everyone is : doing it and it’s ‘just part of the game,’ Buchholz is a cheating cheater : who cheats” tack here? I’m not gonna hold my breath for it, but please, : let me know if you feel that way. : ※ 引述《andy880036s (中信魚京云鬼!!)》之銘言： : : 道歉囉~ : : Jack Morris apologizes to Clay Buchholz : : Jack Morris sought out Clay Buchholz, told him he was sorry he took attention : : away from him. Said that was not his intent. "We're cool.'' : : More Morris: Black Jack said he advised Buch "to have fun with it.'' Said : : Jack: As long as we're cool, I don't care what anyone else thinks : : http://ppt.cc/zgxW -- In the memory of Roger Keith "Syd" Barrett January 6, 1946 - July 7, 2006 http://0rz.tw/X5eJe I know where Syd Barrett lives -- Television Personalities -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 111.253.246.73 ※ 編輯: RogerWaters 來自: 111.253.246.73 (05/12 23:22)
→
05/12 23:27, , 1F
http://0rz.tw/FNzQW 裡面要不要我幫你畫重點
05/12 23:27, 1F
→
05/12 23:28, , 2F
還有一位大大說手上塗什麼都行不要弄到球上就行....
05/12 23:28, 2F
→
05/12 23:29, , 3F
那聯盟禁Pine Tar不知是在禁什麼的 pine tar是用來...
05/12 23:29, 3F
→
05/12 23:30, , 4F
firm grip的..弄到投手手上的功能是這個..這是禁什麼.
05/12 23:30, 4F
→
05/12 23:31, , 5F
Joel Peralta還真的蠻冤的...
05/12 23:31, 5F
→
05/12 23:49, , 6F
rosin bag弄到forearm的爭議, 還不只在一個地方看過..
05/12 23:49, 6F
→
05/12 23:50, , 7F
這就不知道是誰的閱讀該加強了...
05/12 23:50, 7F
推
05/12 23:53, , 8F
是...喔...說的...不錯......
05/12 23:53, 8F
→
05/12 23:54, , 9F
好久沒在MLB看到火藥味這麼十足的文章　∩﹏∩︴︴︴
05/12 23:54, 9F
→
05/13 00:02, , 10F
05/13 00:02, 10F
→
05/13 00:13, , 11F
和我有相同見解的襪迷 http://0rz.tw/iRfkj
05/13 00:13, 11F
推
05/13 00:15, , 12F
有"not more than..."這種字樣 解釋上似乎跟前面爭議的條
05/13 00:15, 12F
→
05/13 00:15, , 13F
文解釋方向完全不同
05/13 00:15, 13F
→
05/13 00:16, , 14F
再掰啊!!!
05/13 00:16, 14F
→
05/13 00:17, , 15F
兩個條文四不能混為一談 "得使用不超過12吋長的手套"這句
05/13 00:17, 15F
→
05/13 00:17, , 16F
話反面解釋便是不得使用超過12吋長的手套
05/13 00:17, 16F
→
05/13 00:19, , 17F
意思就是may 遇到not more than就自動變規定啦..
05/13 00:19, 17F
→
05/13 00:20, , 18F
not more than 是在講inches...那來禁止的意思...
05/13 00:20, 18F
→
05/13 00:21, , 19F
not more than就是數學的<=的意思...自動變禁止你還蠻
05/13 00:21, 19F
→
05/13 00:21, , 20F
會跳針的...
05/13 00:21, 20F
推
05/13 00:26, , 21F
我想"跳針"用語是指就同一看法或意見一再提出主張，不理
05/13 00:26, 21F
→
05/13 00:26, , 22F
他人主張，我是第一次就此問題發表意見，何來所謂"跳針"?
05/13 00:26, 22F
→
05/13 00:27, , 23F
大大的立論是may就是建議用法...不是規定...
05/13 00:27, 23F
推
05/13 00:27, , 24F
RogerWaters防衛心真強
05/13 00:27, 24F
推
05/13 00:27, , 25F
May wear or may not wear, IF he wears, it can't be over
05/13 00:27, 25F
→
05/13 00:27, , 26F
12 inch
05/13 00:27, 26F
→
05/13 00:28, , 27F
那你把下一句換一下...
05/13 00:28, 27F
→
05/13 00:28, , 28F
有什麼問題嗎？May是在說手套可有可無不是說12吋可有可無
05/13 00:28, 28F
→
05/13 00:28, , 29F
"not more than"我想這個英文詞翻譯成中文是指"不超過"吧
05/13 00:28, 29F
→
05/13 00:29, , 30F
那rosin bag也是說可用可不用, 用就只能bare hand &
05/13 00:29, 30F
→
05/13 00:29, , 31F
那這個用語在這個條文不就是已經限定了手套長度的大小?
05/13 00:29, 31F
→
05/13 00:29, , 32F
hands...有問題...跟你邏輯不一樣嗎...
05/13 00:29, 32F
→
05/13 00:30, , 33F
那我舉個我國法律同時包含"得(may)"和"不超過(not more
05/13 00:30, 33F
→
05/13 00:31, , 34F
than)的法條來解釋，你看一下我理解有沒有錯誤
05/13 00:31, 34F
→
05/13 00:33, , 35F
九二一震災重建暫行條例第13條第1項:
05/13 00:33, 35F
→
05/13 00:34, , 36F
合法建築物因震災毀損者，得由原建築物所有人檢具合法建
05/13 00:34, 36F
→
05/13 00:35, , 37F
築物之證明文件，在不超過原建築基地面積及樓地板面積原
05/13 00:35, 37F
→
05/13 00:35, , 38F
則下，向直轄市、縣 (市)主管建築機關提出重建之申請。
05/13 00:35, 38F
→
05/13 00:36, , 39F
得是在講檢具建築物之證明文件, 跟手套天差地遠...
05/13 00:36, 39F
→
05/13 00:37, , 40F
不超過在講建築面積...
05/13 00:37, 40F
→
05/13 00:37, , 41F
你舉這個只更證明下面那一句是法律, 不是建議....
05/13 00:37, 41F
→
05/13 00:37, , 42F
這句法條是說原建築物所有人原則上只能聲請重建不超過原
05/13 00:37, 42F
→
05/13 00:38, , 43F
rosin bag如果用只能用在bare hand & hands.
05/13 00:38, 43F
推
05/13 00:41, , 44F
我的意思是"得"後面的限定用語(未滿、不超過等等)限定了
05/13 00:41, 44F
→
05/13 00:42, , 45F
大哥...你的不超過, 英文是放在in case 裡面...是特定
05/13 00:42, 45F
→
05/13 00:43, , 46F
條件...跟手套的規定差很遠好嗎?
05/13 00:43, 46F
→
05/13 00:43, , 47F
棒球規則裡, 一堆 if, in case的條文就跟你的舉例一樣
05/13 00:43, 47F
→
05/13 00:48, , 48F
那條條文, 比較像入境得攜帶不低於三個月期限的護照..
05/13 00:48, 48F
→
05/13 00:49, , 49F
提出申請...
05/13 00:49, 49F
→
05/13 00:50, , 50F
ht大舉例失敗
05/13 00:50, 50F
推
05/13 00:51, , 51F
這個規則的"not more than"不就是在限定條件裡?
05/13 00:51, 51F
→
05/13 00:52, , 52F
哦...我服了你了...
05/13 00:52, 52F
→
05/13 00:53, , 53F
護照期限是自己用到剩三個月...手套是買來多大的...
05/13 00:53, 53F
→
05/13 00:53, , 54F
"得穿戴不超過12吋的手套"翻譯成中文是這樣嗎?
05/13 00:53, 54F
→
05/13 00:53, , 55F
跟什麼限定條件...你只要持合法的東西就行了...
05/13 00:53, 55F
→
05/13 00:54, , 56F
沒錯...
05/13 00:54, 56F
→
05/13 00:55, , 57F
那反面解釋不就是"不得穿戴超過12吋的手套"?
05/13 00:55, 57F
→
05/13 00:56, , 58F
得, 不得不就是 may 和 may not 互換, 你還要魯多久..
05/13 00:56, 58F
→
05/13 00:57, , 59F
那這邊的"不超過"不就是確實是有限定條件的意思?
05/13 00:57, 59F
→
05/13 00:57, , 60F
就像得持護照申請入境許可, 不得不持護照申請入境許可
05/13 00:57, 60F
→
05/13 00:58, , 61F
得本來就是規定...不是建議...
05/13 00:58, 61F
→
05/13 00:59, , 62F
不用 not more than...就有限定條件了...
05/13 00:59, 62F
推
05/13 01:00, , 63F
我的意思是R大舉出的手套規則有"不超過"這樣的限制條件，
05/13 01:00, 63F
→
05/13 01:00, , 64F
得穿戴手套...就是可以戴手套...但不可以戴雨傘去守備
05/13 01:00, 64F
→
05/13 01:01, , 65F
但是rosin bag這個規則沒有
05/13 01:01, 65F
→
05/13 01:01, , 66F
你還不魯多久...
05/13 01:01, 66F
噓
05/13 01:01, , 67F
對手沒抗議，主播也道歉了，到底還在堅持什麼啊...
05/13 01:01, 67F
→
05/13 01:02, , 68F
在跟我may , may not 互換...
05/13 01:02, 68F
→
05/13 01:02, , 69F
我沒看到Verducci有道歉啊?
05/13 01:02, 69F
→
05/13 01:03, , 70F
在這邊扯一堆法律條文，真的要玩法律野球？
05/13 01:03, 70F
→
05/13 01:04, , 71F
不是還有人要我去讀法律條文的...現在自己龜縮了...
05/13 01:04, 71F
推
05/13 01:09, , 72F
他未甚麼一定要跟你道歉啊? 他不道歉你要告他嗎^^
05/13 01:09, 72F
→
05/13 01:10, , 73F
還有人要我道歉的耶??
05/13 01:10, 73F
→
05/13 01:11, , 74F
Verducci還上節目繼續說...
05/13 01:11, 74F
推
05/13 01:25, , 75F
是我自己理解有誤，是我誤解了"rosin bag"規則的意思，兩
05/13 01:25, 75F
→
05/13 01:26, , 76F
條規則的邏輯是相同的，抱歉浪費RogerWaters的時間跟我解
05/13 01:26, 76F
→
05/13 01:26, , 77F
釋這麼多
05/13 01:26, 77F
→
05/13 09:14, , 78F
所以Buchholz有作弊就是了，其他都沒，滿意了吧！
05/13 09:14, 78F
‣ 更多 RogerWaters 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1HZx89sL (MLB)
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容：
以下文章回應了本文：
完整討論串 (本文為第 4 之 8 篇)：
排序： 最新先 | 最舊先 | 留言數
在新視窗開啟完整討論串 (共8篇)
MLB 近期熱門文章
更多 近期熱門文章 >>
PTT體育區 即時熱門文章
更多 即時熱門文章 >>
‣ 更多 RogerWaters 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1HZx89sL (MLB)