Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
Well, you've made progress in admitting you're confused. Now you just need to go further and realize that everyone else is not confused so you've got to make the extra effort to understand if you don't want to seem like a troll. [I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, though I agree with others that the evidence is pretty significant against you.] The rule states that a batter out of the box is out if she contacts a ball. The only question is what constitutes out of the box. You've cited a different rule which talks about how one has to be in the box to take a pitch and how one can be called out for hitting the ball if one foot is outside the box on the ground.
You extrapolate from that the definition of outside the box is to have one foot outside the box.
Others point out that the extrapolation you make isn't supported by rule or case book play. Many people enforce it that way and it's reasonable but it's not supported by rule. Others take different extrapolations.
No one is suggesting that what you are saying is contravened by rule. They are saying it isn't supported by rule. Since they don't contend there is such a rule, you asking for it makes you seem trollish or dumb. To recap the argument as it plays out to the disinterested third party:
You: This other rule defines being in the box and out of the box as it relates to batting.
Them: Yes, but this is a different rule that doesn't pick up that definition.
You: Show me a rule that says I'm wrong, here is the rule I mentioned. Why don't you all read the rules?
Them: Yes, that is a different rule and that doesn't apply to this rule.
You: Show me a rule that says I'm wrong, here is the rule I mentioned. Why don't you all read the rules? You obviously all hate the rule book.
And with that I will withdraw from the discussion. You can learn and change or I'll put you on ignore like everybody else already has.
|
Time out, the rule or case book he cited specifically states that this applies to purposes of a batter being in the box for a pitch. This clearly limits what it can apply for. the authors of the rule book intend for these words to have an extremely limited extension. You can not logically infer, imply or get any other meaning from it.
i would say you are a guy who when presented with the following will make the incorrect deduction.
Teacher: I have a bag of candy.
Teacher: Some of the candy is hard. Note:t It is given that this is a true statement.
Teacher: Some of the candy is soft. Class, is this statement a true, false or not enough info statement
M guy: It is soft.
Teacher. Sorry, I have made no mention what the other some is. You can not make a valid determination.
Softball authors. They did the same exact thing with the batter in the box for pitching or whatever it is. We have made a some definition of what being in the box is. We have not told you what the other some or somes is or are.
Us. Does that make it clear and concise. Do you see the logic?
Holmes: Elementary my dear Watson.