View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 10, 2009, 11:35pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu View Post
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.
I didn't say, nor insinuate this is what the rule states.

Quote:
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
I don't think it needs a change, but then again, I understand what it means by understanding how one rule complements the other.

Hey, maybe I'm one of those "they" people.
Reply With Quote