Quote:
Originally posted by TwoBits
I didn't understand why straddling the rubber was not a balk until I read the above statement. It perfectly describes an invalid conclusion that cannot be proven by the mathematical laws of syllogism or detachment. I know I am about to be ridiculed by the following explanation, but I'll do it anyway.
According to the consensus of this board:
1) A balk is an illegal act.
2) Straddling the rubber is an illegal act.
3) Straddling the rubber is a balk.
Not true!
Look at it this way, but instead of balk, use "bear", instead of straddling the rubber, use "swan", & instead of illegal act, use "animal":
1) A bear is an animal.
2) A swan is an animal.
3) A swan is a bear.
You see?
|
clearly you didn't take quite enough philosophy in college. Reconstructed to reflect the truth, the argument would go like this:
1)A balk is any act with runners on base that falls under rule 8.05 (8.05)
2)A pitch is illegal if it is delivered after signs are taken off of the rubber (8.01)
3)An illegal pitch falls under rule 8.05 (8.05)
Therefore, A pitch that is delivered after signs are taken off of the rubber is a balk, provided there are runners on base.