Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
OK, here's my last try...
ASA 8-2-M
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is fair.
2. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is foul.
So when a ball hits both white and colored portions of the base simultaneously [see black & white fallacy below], which rule takes precedent? Don’t answer because we know what the answer should be, answer based on the statements above. [If you argue that the ball cannot hit both sides of the base at the same time, let’s draw a vertical line from your belly button and then ask Jenny Finch to throw a pitch and hit the line. I’m guessing you’ll have a red welt on both sides of that line.]
As umpires, we’ve interpreted this rule:
Statement 1 is ALWAYS a true statement.
Statement 2 is true only if the ball does not hit or bound over any portion of the white base. [This is the part Irish inserted into his explanation of his position, which is right as we know it, but not right as the statements are written.]
I didn’t write this stuff below, just copied it to try and clarify my reasoning:
The Composition fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic, too. However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
The Suppressed Evidence fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
[The alternative here, of course, being that a ball can hit both parts of the base at once.]
|
Same logic fallacy here, right (ASA Rule 1)?
Quote:
FAIR BALL: A legally batted ball that:
B. Bounds over or past first or third base, which is in fair territory, regardless
of where the ball hits after going over the base.
FOUL BALL: A batted ball that:
B. Bounds or rolls past first or third base on or over foul territory.
|
Since a softball is not an object with zero width, it is certainly possible for a batted ball to both be over third base and over foul territory at the same time, correct? Or to roll in foul territory and to brush against the base as it goes past, in foul territory, correct? Isn't this precisely the same argument you are making with the double base?
Would it make the rule book easier to use or just more wordy to correct these "errors"?