|
Whoa, K!
Don't think either Dave or I argue that 7.01 gives Batter a "right to occupy" home. I used the rule to help demonstrate that BR never has a "right to occupy" [as used in the 2.00 defn of "Force Play"]~ answer to my Hint: question is (obviously) No. Dave was arguing that 7.01 is unhelpful, but that Batter has a "right to" home that he loses [thus being "forced"] upon becoming a BR.
As for the issue of using the plain meaning of the words and definition(s) actually printed in the book; I think you know from another thread that I am generally in sympathy with that approach: why "interpret" when you have perfectly adequate answers in what is written in black and white?
Nevertheless, we know that there are some Official Interp.s and Authoritative Opinions that at least twist the [relatively] plain language of the written rule rather badly. This fact and practice, along with a too-casual reliance on 9.01(c) is where IMO some folk start to come unglued.
Folks don't like the feeling of being told "everything you know is wrong". So, when confronted by the assertion that the hands are not part of the bat, a batted ball that hits the plate is not a foul ball, ties do not go to the runner, and the play on the BR at first is not a "Force play": this natural human impulse to defend what you "know" to be true leads to some pretty creative "interpretations" in support of what they believe to be "common sense". They decide that the rules are ambiguous, or in conflict, or just don't "specifically cover" this sitch, so here comes 9.01(c) and I use my "common sense", and what I always believed to be the rule, turns out to be the rul(ing)!
|