View Single Post
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 19, 2007, 10:58am
Dakota Dakota is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule
I've just searched the case book, and apparently that throwing-the-bat-in-anger play has not been incorporated. But the words "flagrant misconduct" do ring a bell. It takes more than just USC for a runner to be called out.
If the case play is missing from the 2007 case book, that would support Mike's comment about the current NUS being annoyed at the former NUS member's interpretation here. Perhaps someone has purged all official memory that he was ever there, kind of like trying to find a picture of a former USSR Premier once the guard had changed at the top?

Actually, the rules basis for the case play always was very shaky, especially since throwing a bat in anger, as well as other forms of flagrant misconcuct, IS covered in the rules (which makes relying on the God Rule questionable).

As a matter of game management and general principle, I did kind of like the case play interpretation, though.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote