Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
If it's the opposite of his point, why would that be the correct citation?
He cited the correct rule for the point he's making. The rules contradict each other. One of over 200 errors. :shrug:
|
Because, if you read the article, the writer is discussing plays at first base (see previous paragraph). He then cites 7.01 for the correct ruling on such plays. He then goes further and says that 7.01 implies the opposite of the "myth" that ties go to the runner.
So, the point he is trying to make is that (in connection with plays at first base) 7.01 applies (wrong) and that therefore the "ties go to the runner" is impliedly incorrect, citing 7.01.
Using the writer's cited factual situation (plays at first base), the correct citation is 6.05j, which is exactly the opposite of the point (dispels "ties go to the runner" myth) that he is trying to make.
Let me know if you need more help on this.