Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JEL
...I think if the rule stated , "The pitcher is (remove the word "not") required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired" there would be no confusion because that statement would be very similar to the (FED) baseball rule which states "..the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute for that batter, until such batter is put out, or reaches first base, or a third out has been made."
As 4-6-D is written, it still to me, and my offspring, is not confusing.
Not trying to flame, argue, or fan the inferno here, but you did state you understood what was meant, but that the WORDING was confusing. I ask then how could 4-6-D be worded better? Mike has already in another post asked for rule change/clarification suggestions he can propose for 2008. Maybe this could be your input.
|
Smart boy!
I have made barely over 500 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of those posts in the baseball section.
Mike has made nearly
6000 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of them in the softball section.
We both started posting here within 3 months of one another, so I don't really see how I can be such an annoyance to him. In comparison, I barely participate at all. I could easily be ignored and it wouldn't effect a thing.
I'll say
two more things, then drop the subject, and simply agree to disagree about how "well" worded this rule is.
One of the points of the initial scenario was to make sure that the softball umpire's ruling (ASA-wise) was not influenced by some residual baseball knowledge that might be lurking around in his brain.
The problem with the wording of the rule is not the word "not" - if you can follow me. It is the use of the word "until."
"The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."
This strongly suggests that a time
does come when the pitcher
is required to pitch.
The pitcher is not required to pitch
until the first batter has been faced. I mean, isn't that what it says?
And then what - he's then
required to pitch?
Even the term "the pitcher" is somewhat nebulous.
Who? The new pitcher who just swapped positions with the 2nd baseman? Or, the substitute pitcher - who just entered the game from the bench? Does it matter?
Notwithstanding all the outstanding umpires in this forum who understand this rule (and your son!) I still think there are many umpires who scratch their head when reading this rule.
MGKBLUE stated, earlier in this thread:
"After all the years of umpiring, I still do not understand what this means. The statement is very vague and ambiguous."
He never posted again on this topic.
My guess is that there are a
lot of MGKBLUE's out there. Sometimes umpires who have lots of experience, especially those who get deeply involved with the rules and interpretations, don't see the forest for the trees.
They
know what the rules are and they
know how they are applied. They've progressed to the point where they do not rely much on the written rule any longer. Others do!
It's dangerous to stubbornly maintain that a rule is clear (because it's clear to
you!) when there is evidence to the contrary.
I could never understand why people actually get
angry about these discussions.
And I'm
not referring to you, JEL.
Thanks!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN