My mistake - I thought maybe there was some other place. I guess if someone really wanted to massage this thing, they could justify that manipulating is not equivalent to intentionally dropping. Semantics aside, if a fielder decides to turn his glove away and let the ball hit it and fall to the ground, one could argue it's not the same thing. One could reasonably say that intentionally dropping a ball implies that the ball is caught to begin with and then let fall to the ground. That's why I was looking for something more definitive other than what was in the thread. It's pretty bad when we have to think about something that should be obvious, but isn't because of not only the context, but how it was meant by the writer. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a FED discussion abouthow to write rule changes.