[CecilOne]

Originally posted by streamdoc
Yes, people do tend to overthink the rules, and try to take them too literally word for word. This is a perfect example of why our trainers here in Seattle emphasize thinking about the intent of the rule, and how it applies to the situation. But, the wording of the rule in the book, if taken literally clearly contradicts itself. With this wording, a ball landing on the line, touching both the white bag and the safety bag at the exact same time would be both fair and foul. Obviously, this is impossible and up to the judgement of the umpire to make the call.

By the way, for all of you looking for this thread below, it was on the ASA Washington Board that this discussion just took place - as SRW knows.

The problem with the wording probably comes from the same source as most wording problems in the books - people asking inane questions and then the rule writers answering without perfect precision because they know the answer too well.