Quote:
Is it really the intention of the NFHS to "reward" the defense's apparent game-ending, unassisted double play by granting the offense the opportunity to score the tying and winning runs without liability to be put out?
If that is not their intention, do you suppose they might rephrase the rule rather than issue a case play instructing umpires to do something other than what the rule says to do?
|
It seems that many in baseball have a hard time with actually writing rules that are clear and unambiguous and can be interpreted with a minimum of explanation/casebook examples.
This rule, along with the long discussion on an appeal play ruling I engaged in earlier (OBR 7.10(b)) are perfect examples of rules that should be rewritten so that they actually mean what they say. Don't use absolute words like "immediate" if that clearly is not what the application of the rule is going to be.
There are people called "technical writers" whose sole job is to write clear, unambiguous, well formed writing of a technical nature. Those in charge of writing rules should at minimum consult with such a person, if not hire them to do the actual writing.
It is clear from reading these various rulings that the authors of said baseball rules really do need some help in this area. Alas, it will never happen. Too many egos would likely get in the way.