Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
If you were a logic major, then you would understand that "Pitchers must take signs from the catcher will in contact" DOES NOT EQUAL "Pitchers must be in contact when taking signs from the catcher." If they had meant the latter, they would have put the latter in the book.
|
So, what you are trying to say is that everything that is in the rule book is clearly written, and every possible way of interpreting the rules is spelled out within its covers?
I would like to point out what I've been hearing for quite some time now in that there are 230+ errors in the rule book. Some of the wording is archaic. Many rules are written very poorly and are in need of a major rewrite. That is why it is necessary to have all these alphabet soup interpretation manuals.