View Single Post
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 10, 2004, 09:25pm
Gee Gee is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 305
Well we're at least making progress.

So you still disagree with my interpretation of 7.10(b) as written. Now that you understand that 7.10(d) was extended to all bases, the reason why should be a given.

They extended it because (b) says the runner has to touch his advance base before he can be appealed while (d) says he only has to leave the immediate area to be appealed simply because there is no advance base.
Bremigan didn't like that and MLB agreed so they extended (d) to all bases. If they were both the same, as you and Mr. K. seem to think, why in the world would they have gone to all the bother to make the change?

From what you wrote in the last post C2 and I seem to agree on the central issue which is that (d) was extended to all bases and with that noted I don't see anything else to be interpreted as (d) is right there in the book. As far as I'm concerned they can throw away (b). Think about it. G.


Reply With Quote