Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
The question I asked is was that rule deliberately changed to reverse the rule written in 1998, or is it an error that has escaped detection the last 3 years? If it was a deliberate change, then why is the sentence about not deliberately throwing out of play left in, as it take a contrary position to the prior sentence.
WMB
|
Okay, now my question. Why?
Why would you even run through eight years of rulebooks, changes and interpretations? Is every change a question? Part of your question seems to insinuate there was something hidden from us all. Was it a conspiracy?!?!
These changes were made out in the open and explained at the clinics I attended/conducted nationally, regionally and locally.
Mr. Ryan used a great presentation this year concerning rule changes which I partially emulated locally. Instead of just covering the new changes, he went back and reviewed the previous changes, whether the change was good or not so good, and what was being done to bring the questionable ones back into line. Had this been the clinical procedure 7 years ago, this probably would have been a perfect example as a not-so-good changed for corrective purposes.
On the rule in question, the intent of the original change had some good thoughts behind it, but just didn't work. It was found that there were a few glitches and that the defense figured out how to abuse the rule, so they changed it back.
As far as the relieving any restrictions on the runner should the fielder deliberately kill the ball, that was probably left there as a preventive catch-all should there have been something which was missed. Want it out? I'll see if a housekeeping change may be in order.