[Rich Ives]

Please don't take this personally, it is meant to be comments in general.

MLBUM ruling is "new law"

Nope, just an overturned ruling by a higher court.

Another one is the "overrun on a walk" which was in dispute. MLBUM says legal.

Both bring the "final" ruling in line with the published rule.

I think too often people have looked on some rules as "that doesn't seem necessary/right" and looked for a reason to not call it as written.

Another is the "throw has to be from the plate area" in the running lane violation interference. Fitzpatrick, to Carl's (and others) amazement, said it can be from anywhere - just as the rule says (OK it says it because it doesn't limit the source of the throw).

This one can still be overtutned I suppose, but JEA says the history is really to protect F3 (or whoever) from a deliberate crash or being screened on the throw. While being screened would generally have to be on a throw from the plate, the deliberate crash part could happen on a throw from anywhere. This fits with the Fitzpatrick ruling Carl published.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Jan 7th, 2005 at 08:04 PM]