[BretMan]

Thankfully, my local association spent a few minutes on this- along with the other 2007 rule changes- in our first meeting then moved on. Our interpreter had got the info on the botched Case Book rewrite before the meeting, so that conflicting issue didn't garner much discussion.

Our local meetings do generally stay on-point and don't wander off into "what-if's", war stories or third world plays. If something warrants further discussion we hold it for after the scheduled agenda.

I can see where there might be some confusion about this new rule. The FED has issued one set of interpretations, but issued a conflicting one in their Case Book and in their preseason informational materials. It's bound to create some confusion when two diametrically opposed interps are issued for the same rule.

This rule has generated a long, and somewhat absurd, discussion on the NFHS baseball discussion boards at their website. Apparently many states are either misinterpreting this change, accepting the erroneous Case Book play as accurate, retaining bits and pieces from last year's rule or choosing to reinvent their own versions of how this should be called.

But you are right, Pete. Hash it and move on! With the limited amount of time most associations get with their members, there are more important things to cover that can have a much more positive effect on how games are called and managed.