[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't prove interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous."
But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."
|
Exactly right. One has to imply the passage is telling us that the runner must avoid
contact with a fielder. But it is also possible that it is the fielder's attempt to field a batted ball that must be avoided by the runner. Indeed, even Rule 2.00 would further suggest that it is the fielder's attempt to make a play that must be avoided by the very definition of interference itself.
As far as the other issue, I've always fancied using, "he," as a generic pronoun meaning either sex (or what-have-you) and I believe it is appropriate and preferred. But what do I know? I could be a sexist pig.
[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 19th, 2004 at 07:44 PM]