|
Sports » rec.sport.baseball » Bob Uecker's acceptance speech
| Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056762] |
Mon, 10 July 2006 18:23 |
|
I've been in a desperate search for an mp3 file of Bob Uecker's Hall-of-Fame
acceptance speech. He was inducted into the Hall-of-Fame as a broadcaster in
2003. I saw the speech and it was absolutely hilarious. Many have said that
it was the best (certainly the most humorous) acceptance speech EVER!
It's easy to find the transcript of this speech on the internet, but the
audio link on MLB.com is no longer functional. In any case, what I *really*
want is an mp3 file of his speech.
If anybody has it, I would appreciate it if you would contact me via email.
Just remove the phrase HATESPAM from my email address.
Thanks!
David Emerling
demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056777 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 10:41 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:57:03 GMT, "David Emerling"
<demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen [at] alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>news:nieporen-637F6B.21445310072006 [at] host170.octanews.net...
>> In article <cQBsg.25230$u11.6627 [at] tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Keith Willoughby" <keith [at] flat222.org> wrote in message
>>>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> I've been in a desperate search for an mp3 file of Bob Uecker's
>>>>> Hall-of-Fame acceptance speech. He was inducted into the Hall-of-Fame
>>>>> as a broadcaster in 2003.
>>
>>>> Someone else is going to point out he wasn't inducted into the HOF, but
>>>> rather won the Ford C. Frick award, so it may as well be me.
>>
>>>I thought he won the Frick award which is a section of the HOF.
>>
>> It isn't. It (like the Spink award) is just an annual award. There's
>> only
>> one writer in the HOF -- Henry Chadwick. The rest are just award winners.
>>
>>>Whatever.
>>>Then isn't it odd that his "induction" came during the same ceremony where
>>>players were inducted into the HOF?
>>
>> Why should it be odd? They announce the award at the same time as the
>> induction ceremonies.
>
>Well, I certainly think the confusion is understandable seeing as they use
>the same setting and stage for these non-HoF inductees. Uecker gave his
>acceptance speech in the immediate wake of those who *were* being inducted
>in the HoF ... *at* the HoF, no less. So, I imagine I am not alone in this
>confusion.
This is news to me. Frick award winners are frequently referred to as
"Hall of Fame broadcasters".
--
James Farrar
. [at] gmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056778 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 08:57 |
|
"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen [at] alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-637F6B.21445310072006 [at] host170.octanews.net...
> In article <cQBsg.25230$u11.6627 [at] tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Keith Willoughby" <keith [at] flat222.org> wrote in message
>>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> writes:
>
>>>> I've been in a desperate search for an mp3 file of Bob Uecker's
>>>> Hall-of-Fame acceptance speech. He was inducted into the Hall-of-Fame
>>>> as a broadcaster in 2003.
>
>>> Someone else is going to point out he wasn't inducted into the HOF, but
>>> rather won the Ford C. Frick award, so it may as well be me.
>
>>I thought he won the Frick award which is a section of the HOF.
>
> It isn't. It (like the Spink award) is just an annual award. There's
> only
> one writer in the HOF -- Henry Chadwick. The rest are just award winners.
>
>>Whatever.
>>Then isn't it odd that his "induction" came during the same ceremony where
>>players were inducted into the HOF?
>
> Why should it be odd? They announce the award at the same time as the
> induction ceremonies.
Well, I certainly think the confusion is understandable seeing as they use
the same setting and stage for these non-HoF inductees. Uecker gave his
acceptance speech in the immediate wake of those who *were* being inducted
in the HoF ... *at* the HoF, no less. So, I imagine I am not alone in this
confusion.
Did they also give an award to whomever won the Cooperstown Hot Dog Eating
Contest on *that* stage, on *that* day, during *that* ceremony? :)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056785 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:07 |
|
Realto Margarino <rm [at] youasked.org> writes:
> Keith Willoughby <keith [at] flat222.org> trolled:
>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> writes:
>
>> > I've been in a desperate search for an mp3 file of Bob Uecker's
>> > Hall-of-Fame acceptance speech. He was inducted into the
>> > Hall-of-Fame as a broadcaster in 2003.
>
>> Someone else is going to point out he wasn't inducted into the
>> HOF, but rather won the Ford C. Frick award, so it may as well be
>> me.
>
> But it _was_ an acceptance speech,
Correct
> and it _was_ given at the HoF.
Correct
> So Emerling isn't wrong,
Incorrect
> you pedantic little asshole.
Correct again. 3/4. Well done.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Even a three year-old would say it was symptomatic of the death
of narrative in cinema"
- Mark Kermode on Scary Movie 4
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056806 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 20:54 |
|
In article <90p6b21tq9q43d1p02qibmjma9ev7t0knl [at] 4ax.com>,
James Farrar <james.s.farrar [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>>"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen [at] alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>"Keith Willoughby" <keith [at] flat222.org> wrote in message
>>>>> "David Emerling" <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> writes:
>>>>>> I've been in a desperate search for an mp3 file of Bob Uecker's
>>>>>> Hall-of-Fame acceptance speech. He was inducted into the Hall-of-Fame
>>>>>> as a broadcaster in 2003.
>>>>> Someone else is going to point out he wasn't inducted into the HOF, but
>>>>> rather won the Ford C. Frick award, so it may as well be me.
>>>>I thought he won the Frick award which is a section of the HOF.
>>> It isn't. It (like the Spink award) is just an annual award. There's
>>> only one writer in the HOF -- Henry Chadwick. The rest are just award
>>> winners.
>>>>Whatever.
>>>>Then isn't it odd that his "induction" came during the same ceremony
>>>>where players were inducted into the HOF?
>>> Why should it be odd? They announce the award at the same time as the
>>> induction ceremonies.
>>Well, I certainly think the confusion is understandable seeing as they use
>>the same setting and stage for these non-HoF inductees. Uecker gave his
>>acceptance speech in the immediate wake of those who *were* being inducted
>>in the HoF ... *at* the HoF, no less. So, I imagine I am not alone in this
>>confusion.
>This is news to me. Frick award winners are frequently referred to as
>"Hall of Fame broadcasters".
People refer to fair balls that bounce over the outfield fence into the
stands as "ground rule doubles," too, even though they're not.
The Frick award (again, like the Spink award) is just an annual award.
(The HOF's website clearly notes the distinction.) The winners are noted
in an _exhibit_ at the Hall -- that is, there's a listing of all their
names -- but they don't get the individual plaques that actual inductees
get.
To understand the difference, note that an individual must meet certain
criteria to be inducted. He must get 75% of the vote; if nobody does,
nobody is inducted that year. But the Frick award is just an annual award.
They give it to whomever gets the most votes.
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1056848 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 12:44 |
|
David M. Nieporent <nieporen [at] alumni.princeton.edu> trolled:
> People refer to fair balls that bounce over the outfield fence
> into the stands as "ground rule doubles," too, even though they're
> not.
Yes they are ground rule doubles. We have had this argument before.
And you lost.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1059606 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 21:07 |
|
"Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
news:so4tg.121347$LI3.29457 [at] fe12.news.easynews.com...
> David M. Nieporent <nieporen [at] alumni.princeton.edu> trolled:
>
>> People refer to fair balls that bounce over the outfield fence
>> into the stands as "ground rule doubles," too, even though they're
>> not.
>
> Yes they are ground rule doubles. We have had this argument before.
> And you lost.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
There are RULES, which are clearly delineated in the rulebook.
And there are GROUND RULES, which are park-specific.
For instance, what is the proper ruling when a ball hits a rafter in a domed
stadium and is subsequently caught by a fielder before the ball hits the
ground? You won't find that anywhere in the official rules. Consequently,
this needs to be addressed. A GROUND RULE is created and this is usually
discussed during the pregame conference between the managers and the
umpires. Each park has its own set of ground rules. Those at Fenway Park may
differ from those at Wrigley Field.
The ball bounding over the fence in fair territory requires no GROUND RULE
since such an instance is *specifically* addressed in the rulebook.
Official Baseball Rule 6.09(e) states, "The batter becomes a runner when a
fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes
through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through
or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the
runners shall be entitled to advance two bases."
This is not a GROUND RULE. It is *customarily* called a "ground rule double"
but that, technically, is a misnomer. You like technicalities - don't you?
The case of a batted fair ball bounding over the fence need not be discussed
during the pregame conference because there is a rule that specifically
addresses it just as the fact that each team is allotted three outs per
inning not be discussed. On the other hand, a live ball that gets stuck in
the tarp which is rolled up in live ball territory DOES need to be
addressed.
I wasn't involved in the previous "argument" you mention. I would be
interested in hearing why you insist this is a GROUND rule double.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
P.S.
Along this line, it is also a common misconception that when a fan reaches
out into live ball territory and touches a live ball, that the runners are
all awarded two bases. That is also incorrect. This is known as spectator
interference and is specifically addressed in Official Rule 3.16 which
states, "When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted
ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire
shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of
interference." For standardization purposes, umpires lean heavily toward a
2-base award for all runners but that is not a requirement. A exception
might be the following play:
Play: Runner on 1st who is stealing on the pitch. The batter hits the ball
into the rightfield corner for extra bases. As the ball is bouncing around
in the corner a fan reaches out and touches the ball in live ball territory.
Ruling: This is spectator interference and the ball is immediately declared
dead. In accordance with rule 3.16 the umpire can assign the runners ANY
base he believes nullifies the interference. If the umpire felt the runner
from 1st would have easily scored had the fan not touched the ball, he can
award that runner home. Although this would be a rare call, it would not be
inconsistent with the intent of the rule.
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1059607 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 22:14 |
|
David Emerling <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> trolled:
> This is not a GROUND RULE. It is *customarily* called a "ground rule double"
> but that, technically, is a misnomer.
Words take their meaning from custom and from custom only. 99.9% of
all fans refer to the ball bouncing into the seats as a ground rule
double. The fact that a pedantic little wuss like yourself feels
that this is "technically" a misnomer has no effect on the fact that
99.9% of all fans refer to this situation as a ground rule double.
> You like technicalities - don't you?
Your expalanation of why a ground rule double is not a ground rule
double is of interest only to those investigating the etymology of
"ground rule double."
> The case of a batted fair ball bounding over the fence need not be
> discussed during the pregame conference because there is a rule
> that specifically addresses it just as the fact that each team is
> allotted three outs per inning not be discussed. On the other
> hand, a live ball that gets stuck in the tarp which is rolled up
> in live ball territory DOES need to be addressed.
So you're saying that some ground rules have to be discussed and
others don't? That makes sense.
> I wasn't involved in the previous "argument" you mention. I would
> be interested in hearing why you insist this is a GROUND rule
> double.
We don't insist on anything. We just recognize that the real
definitions of words are derived from usage and custom.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1087103 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 06:49 |
|
"Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
news:07xug.240032$SQ6.128203 [at] fe09.news.easynews.com...
> David Emerling <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> trolled:
>
>> This is not a GROUND RULE. It is *customarily* called a "ground rule
>> double"
>> but that, technically, is a misnomer.
>
> Words take their meaning from custom and from custom only. 99.9% of
> all fans refer to the ball bouncing into the seats as a ground rule
> double. The fact that a pedantic little wuss like yourself feels
> that this is "technically" a misnomer has no effect on the fact that
> 99.9% of all fans refer to this situation as a ground rule double.
>
>> You like technicalities - don't you?
>
> Your expalanation of why a ground rule double is not a ground rule
> double is of interest only to those investigating the etymology of
> "ground rule double."
>
>> The case of a batted fair ball bounding over the fence need not be
>> discussed during the pregame conference because there is a rule
>> that specifically addresses it just as the fact that each team is
>> allotted three outs per inning not be discussed. On the other
>> hand, a live ball that gets stuck in the tarp which is rolled up
>> in live ball territory DOES need to be addressed.
>
> So you're saying that some ground rules have to be discussed and
> others don't? That makes sense.
>
>> I wasn't involved in the previous "argument" you mention. I would
>> be interested in hearing why you insist this is a GROUND rule
>> double.
>
> We don't insist on anything. We just recognize that the real
> definitions of words are derived from usage and custom.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Just because a phrase is used frequently doesn't make it correct.
I train umpires. A common comment by fans and coaches is, "The hands are
part of the bat!" Have you ever heard that before? I have heard that phrase
countless times in the context of a baseball rules reference. Everybody
believes it is true. My guess is that YOU believe it is true.
In actuality - it is absolutely INCORRECT.
If a pitched ball strikes a batter on his hand, he is "hit by the pitch" in
accordance with the rules. The phrase, "The hands are part of the bat" never
appears in the rule book and yet, if a survey was taken, I would estimate
that over 80% would think that it is true. I believe this myth has its
origin with basketball.
I agree with your point about how words mean what people intend them to
mean. If everybody wanted to call the moon the "blooblesplurb", and the
phrase was used commonly, then a blooblesplurb would simply be another way
of saying the moon.
That is quite different if everybody wanted to call the moon, Jupiter.
Jupiter is a planet and the moon is a satellite. Calling the moon Jupiter is
simply incorrect because now it is difficult to differentiate the proper
usage of the word Jupiter with the new, and popular, INCORRECT usage of the
word Jupiter.
There are GROUND RULES and there are RULES. I will probably understand what
a person means when they say "Scott Rolen hit a ground rule double", yet, I
can never be completely sure what REALLY happened. Did his batted ball get
wedged under the tarp? Did his fly ball go *through* the scoreboard at
Fenway Park? (a fairly common occurrence for which there is a specific
ground rule)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: Bob Uecker's acceptance speech [message #1087174 ] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 21:30 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> We don't insist on anything. We just recognize that the real
> definitions of words are derived from usage and custom.
This, from someone who insists on terming P*t* R*s* the "greatest
hitter" in history despite usage and custom that would have most
people coming up with names like Ruth or Williams or Gehrig if
they look at all of history, and Mantle or Mays or Aaron if they
look at the era.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Is it kisstomary to cuss the bride?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Wed Jan 7 15:51:46 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.14563 Sekunden |
