Bob,
I stand corrected, it was Gee, not Garth.
I was not the one trying to quote the rule book to determine outfield and infield. I was simply pointing out that such a quotation was disingenuous. The fact that the rule book may be in error only serves to make my point even more.
And, for the love of God, why the xxxxx don't they FIX the rule book!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
Garth your reading of 1.04 is disingenuous. If you look at Diagram 1, you would note that that 90 foot square is made up by the foul lines down 1st and 3rd and the four corners of the square are, in fact the bases themselves.
Unless an infielder were playing in on a bunt, none of them in their typical positions could be considered infielders by your definition.
But it was a nice try....
|
First, it was Gee, not Garth who made that post.
Second, it's a well known "error" in the book -- and just one reason why it can't be read literally.
|
[Edited by mick on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 11:47 AM]