Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
I thought that was explained quite well early on.
|
I probably should have worded my question differently. I wasn't questioning whaether there are reasons in favor of the strike zone being enlarged or altered, just the methodolgy of implementing the change by intstructing officials to do something that contradicts the rules.
The rules define a specific strike zone. If the consensus is that the strike zone prescribed in the rules is not working well or needs to be wider, wouldn't the appropriate thing be to change the rules rather than break or contradict them?
I know nobody would decide to award first base on 3 balls instead of 4 or call a batter out with 2 strikes instead of 3 because it seemed to work better or to move the game along, and I don't imagine that anyone would instruct that in a clinic.
I am just trying to understand why the approach is not to change the rule rather than circumvent it?