[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MGKBLUE

After all the years of umpiring, I still do not understand what this means. The statement is very vague and ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Actually. the sentence about the pitcher is not required to pitch, etc., is one of the parts of the ASA rule book I like to make fun of.
I know what they were trying to say, but they really mucked up the wording of the sentence.

Originally Posted by bkbjones

If the point you are trying to make is the rule book, any rule book, is poorly worded, well, that's kinda like saying much of the night sky is black...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The kicker is that the sentence shouldn't be there to begin.

Originally Posted by Dakota

But the first time I read this, I did have to re-read it to figure it out - since the obvious meaning of the sentence is not possible.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

let's accept this sentence for what it is - another example of ASA's lousy literary skills.

Exactly!

And the only point I have been trying to make on this topic was simply this: It's poorly worded. Simply that.

I know what they're trying to say, too.

Conveying a rule by referencing a rule that used to exist is not only bad form, the language is oblique if you are unaware of the reference. It needlessly interjects an element of the rule that need not even be addressed.

I maintain, a new umpire, or one who is unaware of the rule's evolution, could have extreme difficulties with this. The sentence would not easily help him untangle a situation that should be able to be resolved with ease. Worse yet, it could cause him to come to an unintended conclusion.

Although it's true that there are many rules that are poorly worded, it is also true that some are not. This is an example of the former. That's all, and nothing more.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN