Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
No he is going on and on about safety blah blah, as if I am asking about the reason for the doublebase.. which is obviously implemented for safety. I'm asking for the reasoning behind using the term "force" in 8.2.4.m inappropriately, if not to make it apply to situations like this.
|
Please don't back me into a corner and make me defend him!
I believe the answer to your question - "What is the purpose of rule 8.2.4.m?" IS "Safety" The purpose of the base in the first place is safety, yes... but without this rule, it is no longer safe, as BR would HAVE to cross F3 (and vice versa) to reach the bases they were required to reach. WITH this rule, they no longer have to - which is why I would say that the reason for this rule is quite simply safety.
And this is why I asked you which question you were really after. Because it was obvious from your response to Pianoboy that you really weren't asking that, even though that is what he was answering.
Quote:
|
So I went to my 06 Clinic notes - and that is exactly the implication of this rule - it is one base after the b/r situation is resolved and how I was enforcing it last year. I stated in my OP that I understood that the rule means for all intents and purposes, it is one base after the b/r situation.
|
By clinic, by interpretation, and by usage, yes. I believe Mike was probably only pointing out that this interp was actually not rule-based. Only usage/clinic based, although I think he only muddied the issue by saying so, as 100% of the clinics I've attended that addressed this said what you said.
Quote:
|
8.2.M.4 allows defender on forces (obviously not technical definition forces, it means "force out" plays) i.e. plays where the defender must only touch the bag to get the out to use the orange bag if they are on the foul side.
|
Yeah - I hate the inconsistency too. 8-2-M-4 doesn't apply to anyone but the BR, and BR can't be forced. You are right that the use of that word in this rule was technically a mistake.
Quote:
|
But when Mike enters a convo and asks something like that, it adds a big fat shade of gray that makes it less clear... because obviously this exact situation is not covered by the rule in exact language.
|
As I stated above, I agree with you. You also muddied the conversation by bringing in the side issue dealing with R - which doesn't apply to this rule at all.