Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
The agrument that "everyone knows what was meant" simply doesn't fly. Best example is the rule change for the fast and modified pitch game where a ball is called on the batter instead of an illegal pitch, because it "was an illegal pitch and were always intended to be a ball on the batter only." So if I had called that play in the last of the seventh inning and allowed the winning run to score from 3rd base as an illegal pitch, and it was protested by the losing team, how would the ruling come out? Like it's written or how it was intended?
Ted
|
Don't know, Ted. How many times did you allow a BR advance to 1B on a D3K with two outs and no one on 1B? Until a couple years ago, the rule book did not support such a thing.
How many times have you seen an umpire not call a batter out on a ball not above the batter's head and caught in flight that wasn't a foul tip?
There is an entire section in the ASA rule book titled, "TOUCHING BASES IN LEGAL ORDER", yet there is no mention in the rules what that order is.
In Rule 5, to score a run, a player must touch first, second, third and home base. Nowhere does it state in which order they must be touched. If a BR hit the ball to the gap and touched home, second, third and then first would you score the run? The player completed the task required in accordance to what is written in the rules, so would it be overturned upon protest if you scored the run?
If you think my examples are ridiculous, I agree.
Not everything can be reduced to print. Yes, some things get missed or all possible scenarios cannot be noted. Also, because the rules are so intertwined, some possible issues are missed when a change is made in one part of the book that affects another. That is why we have clinics and rules clarifications.
That is why the discussions on boards like this can be so educational. There have been rule changes proposed and some accepted that came directly from this or a similar discussion board.