Quote:
Originally posted by tcannizzo
I disagree with the official interpretation based on the way the rule is written. I acknowledge that 8-5-B-4 supports the official interpretation, but in context of the entirety of of 8-5-B and POE 36, support for the official interpretation becomes unclear. Just my opinion....The official interp would never stand up in court within the context the entire rule.
|
Yup, you're a lawyer.
The phrase you dispute only removes ONE of the conditions in the rule. It hardly invalidates the entire rule. All of the ink spent on dealing the with runner being put out was most likely because ASA felt that needed more clarification than the simpler part of the rule - namely that the obstructed runner is awarded the base she would have achieved, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. That is the heart and soul of the rule. It is not a bizzare interpretation subject to inane analysis.
I gave up on you because: You continued to argue with the clear wording of the rule; So, I provided the case play; You continued to argue with the case play by way of derision.
In your most recent responses you continue to want to argue against the clear wording of the rule.
I, for one, have been a frequent critic of the sentence structure, language, syntax, and editing of the ASA rule book. So I am no blind defender of the writ handed down from OK City. But there is precious little wrong with their wording here. Sure, they need to remove the "about to receive" clause in the sub rule that they already took out of the main rule. But that's it. The rest is very clear.
Now, can you learn or are you you still just getting annoyed?
[Edited by Dakota on Apr 5th, 2005 at 12:12 PM]