Quote:
Originally posted by Bandit
And you thought that I was going crazy didn't you Mr Dakota ?
|
Well, to be honest, yes, I did!
(BTW, while I appreciate the respect, the "Mr" is unnecessary - just plain Dakota or Tom will do - or even Ice or Iceblue if you frequent those other boards.)
For the further explanation given, it would appear that what NFHS
intended to do was tighten significantly the definition of "directly".
It making judgments on a foul tip, I had already pretty much ignored the "higher" phrase since it so rarely came into the equation.
The standard I used was did the catcher make a play on the batted ball or not? (i.e. did the ball go to the glove or did the glove go to the ball).
The standard NFHS is putting into their interp is "perceptable arc."
Fine for a ball with an arc, but what about one that goes straight back (i.e. no arc) but comes off at an angle. F2 has to move to the ball. OUT in ASA. What about NFHS? Does the old standard still apply when there is no arc?
i.e. : (assume ball is caught by the catcher)
Perceptable arc?[list=A][*]YES - not a foul tip[*] NO - did the catcher make a play?[list=1][*]YES - not a foul tip[*]NO - a foul tip[/list=1][/list=A]
OR do they want
Perceptable arc?[list=a][*]YES - not a foul tip[*]NO - a foul tip.[/list=a]