Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbfoulds
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.
|
By "actual game sitch" do you mean some action explicitly provided for in the rules?
Petitio principii.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbfoulds
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 9.01b (please note, NOT "c") - [oops - prohibitory Rule, again]? WHAT?! What's the penalty? Where does it [the penalty] come from?
|
You're making my point: umpires have escape clauses like 9.01b (and c) in order to catch things that are NOT EXPLICITLY prohibited by rule. And as we all know, that opens those rules to abuse by the officious.
At least we agree about the important points.
