View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 10, 2009, 10:37pm
Tru_in_Blu Tru_in_Blu is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fremont, NH
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
8.2.M.1&2 are both true statements. Yet for an umpire to make determinations and apply rules, s/he must consider the entire book, not just a specific word, line, sentence or paragraph alone.

A ball which does hit or bound over the orange portion only is a foul ball since that portion of the base is in foul territory (2.3.H) and at no time did the batted ball meet the qualification of a fair ball as set forth in Rule 1.

Lacking any qualifying statement in the definition of a foul ball involving the double base, a ball which hits ANY portion of the white must be a fair ball.
So we're almost to agreement. A ball which hits or bounds over any part of the white base is a fair ball.

And you've now added the qualifier to 8.2.m.2 in that you've stated if the ball hits or bounds over only the colored portion it is a foul ball. This is different than how the rule reads, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Like I said, 99 44/100s of umpires will call a fair ball if a ball hits both white/colored portions of the base at the same time.

So why isn't the rule wordsmithed a bit to eliminate the non-optimal, mutually exclusive logic?

Say what you will about taking all the rules as a collective whole and applying them as appropriate. I can accept that.

I will say that the two passages, one right after another, which are basically an If/Then set of statements fail the common English interpretation. [Although all of us know what "they" really meant.] Kinda like that rule with the pitcher having 20 seconds and a violation was an illegal pitch but no runners advanced because everyone knew what "they" really meant. But that one got changed, didn't it?

Ted
Reply With Quote