Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbyron
Sorry CB, have to disagree here: plenty of things are neither explicitly prohibited nor permitted in the rules. R2 may not dig a moat around 2B, for example. Neither can R1, for that matter...
Examples like that seem dumb, of course, but the point is that the rules are NEITHER an exhaustive list of what is prohibited in baseball, NOR an exhaustive list of what is permitted. No sound argument deploys reasoning of the form "Since the rules don't explicitly forbid/permit that, it must be permitted/forbidden."
The rules are rough guidelines to how the game should be played, and they must be interpreted with wisdom, experience, and good sense. An umpire lacking any one of these will err.
And a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either.
|
Not to pick an argument when we don't, on anything that matters, disagree....
However: name me ONE actual game sitch [ie: no moats around the bases, please] where the accepted or correct ruling does not fit the condition I have proposed - IOW, where something is prohibited or penalised based on the absence of a rule PERMITTING it. I don't think you will find one.
Even the "example" you have given [unauthorised landscaping of the infield] fits if you then ask the question: so what's the penalty? Let's us just assume that R2 begins excavation of that moat we both agree he ain't gonna be permitted to construct....he's, what? Out for interference [oops, that's a rule (against offensive interference) that explicitly PROHIBITS the action in question]? Ejected for disregarding an umpire's directive per 9.01
b (please note, NOT "c") - [oops - prohibitory Rule, again]? WHAT?! What's the penalty? Where does it [the penalty] come from?
I admit that my outlook on this is somewhat colored by a principle from my day job: a "crime" with no penalty is no crime at all.
In general, when someone goes at a baseball problem looking for "what rule permits 'em to do X...", or "reasons" that because they can't find a rule permitting something, that it is or ought to be prohibited/ penalised - they are on the wrong track, and they often err by inventing "Rules" and rulings which are unsupported by anything other than their own whim and fiat [no, not the car].
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbyron
The rules are rough guidelines to how the game should be played, and they must be interpreted with wisdom, experience, and good sense. An umpire lacking any one of these will err.
And a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either.
|
THAT part I agree with and endorse wholeheartedly.