Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
""If the obstructed runner (1) is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction OR (2) advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred"
Oh, BTW, in this case, it is a conjunction and the noun to which "advanced" is associated is "runner".
Modified to clarify sentence.
|
I don't like to be the grammar police, and am not an English major. I only commented because the OP had trouble understand this admittedly horribly written sentence, and you tried to say there is nothing wrong with the sentence as written.
There's no logical place to break this sentence, so I'll use your break to illustrate my point. And nevermind that the tense of the first part (is put out) is different from the second part (advanced) - which only adds to the confusion of the reader.
If advanced refers to "runner", then using your break, the 2nd part of the sentence is "If the obstructed runner advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred... the obstructed runner will be called out."
So ... just advancing beyond the bases where (or "between which" the obstruction occurred is an out? No need to actually tag the runner - just advancing is an out? No, of course not. My point exactly - the sentence is nonsensical.
Replace "where" with "Between which" helps a lot, Replace OR with AND also helps, but this still doesn't finish the job. Perhaps, "If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction AND the runner has also advanced beyond the two bases between which the obstruction occurred..."
As written, the "is put out after" is necessarily part of the sentence BEFORE the break, and makes marginally more sense than the break in the sentence you propose. But the OR still must be an AND or a runner can be called out if he doesn't meet either requirement rather than BOTH requirements.