The Simple Things

IRISHMAFIA

While I'm rolling on simplification......😉

Have you ever wondered why the rules addressing the infield fly specify that first & second, or first, second and third are occupied?

Why is third base even mentioned since we all know that the occupation of that base is irrelevant to the rule? 😕

Rich

IRISHMAFIA wrote
While I'm rolling on simplification......😉

Have you ever wondered why the rules addressing the infield fly specify that first & second, or first, second and third are occupied?

Why is third base even mentioned since we all know that the occupation of that base is irrelevant to the rule? :confused:

I prefer the line, "Anytime with less than 2 outs there's a force play at third base..."

Rich Ives

IRISHMAFIA wrote
While I'm rolling on simplification......😉

Have you ever wondered why the rules addressing the infield fly specify that first & second, or first, second and third are occupied?

Why is third base even mentioned since we all know that the occupation of that base is irrelevant to the rule? :confused:

Because if you only had first and second listed for the condition then it wouldn't be in effect if the bases were loaded.

Before you say "BUT!" - think it through again.

IRISHMAFIA

Rich Ives wrote
Because if you only had first and second listed for the condition then it wouldn't be in effect if the bases were loaded.

Before you say "BUT!" - think it through again.

BUT 😀 the statement/rule is worded for the stupid.

The requirement is met when there is a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base. If the bases are loaded, is that requirement still not met? Is there not still a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base?

Trying to justify the stance that too many runners on base negates a given rule is just as moronic as all the idiots screaming "it's in the hole" on every tee shot.

Rich Ives

IRISHMAFIA wrote
BUT 😀 the statement/rule is worded for the stupid.

The requirement is met when there is a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base. If the bases are loaded, is that requirement still not met? Is there not still a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base?

Trying to justify the stance that too many runners on base negates a given rule is just as moronic as all the idiots screaming "it's in the hole" on every tee shot.

It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

sbatten

Rich wrote
I prefer the line, "Anytime with less than 2 outs there's a force play at third base..."

Agreed on the unnecessary wording in the book, and I too prefer to break it down Rich's way.

Similarly, ASA 8-2-J could be reworded to "When an infielder intentionally drops a caught fair fly ball, when there is less than two outs and first base is occupied at the time of the pitch."

IRISHMAFIA

Rich Ives wrote
It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

Judge: You have been found guilty in two counts of murder and are sentenced to life in prison.
Criminal: But your honor, I didn't kill two people, I killed three.
Judge: Three? Well, in that case you cannot be guilty of killing only two people. You are free to go. Thanks for stopping by. 🙄

TwoBits

Rich Ives wrote
It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

This, and I've discovered there many more of these types in softball than baseball.

Rich Ives

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Judge: You have been found guilty in two counts of murder and are sentenced to life in prison.
Criminal: But your honor, I didn't kill two people, I killed three.
Judge: Three? Well, in that case you cannot be guilty of killing only two people. You are free to go. Thanks for stopping by. :rolleyes:

Doesn't work that way. There would be separate counts for each person, not one count of killing two. You'd be found guilty twice - once for each.

Nice try though.

IRISHMAFIA

Rich Ives wrote
Doesn't work that way. There would be separate counts for each person, not one count of killing two. You'd be found guilty twice - once for each.

Nice try though.

Really? That's the way they do it? 🙄

EsqUmp

Rich wrote
I prefer the line, "Anytime with less than 2 outs there's a force play at third base..."

And since we are harping over language, it's actually "fewer" than 2 outs. Not "less" than two outs.

Rich

EsqUmp wrote
And since we are harping over language, it's actually "fewer" than 2 outs. Not "less" than two outs.

I know the difference and could care less (yes, I did that on purpose).

(Do you tell grocery store managers that their express lanes should say "10 items or fewer"? 😃)

Manny A

A little off-topic, but somewhat related:

To date, pro baseball rules still state, "If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off play."

I've always wondered why they just don't remove the words I underlined. I mean, why bother?

IRISHMAFIA

Manny A wrote
A little off-topic, but somewhat related:

To date, pro baseball rules still state, "If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off play."

I've always wondered why they just don't remove the words I underlined. I mean, why bother?

Personally, I think the entire rule is crap. Why not just force the pitcher to tell the runner where the ball is going.:rolleyes:

CecilOne

Rich wrote
(Do you tell grocery store managers that their express lanes should say "10 items or fewer"? 😃)

I have and also that 15 is not 10 or fewer. 😉

HugoTafurst

CecilOne wrote
I have and also that 15 is not 10 or fewer. 😉

That is another story...:mad:

IRISHMAFIA

EsqUmp wrote
And since we are harping over language, it's actually "fewer" than 2 outs. Not "less" than two outs.

Well, fewer is correct, but less is not wrong, at least, not according to Messrs. Merriam and Webster

Steve M

CecilOne wrote
I have and also that 15 is not 10 or fewer. 😉

Now, if they can't count to make change, how do you expect them to know that 15 is more than 10?

ASA/NYSSOBLUE

It's not just softball - you should see the NCAA volleyball rule book (NYS hs volleyball uses the NCAA ruleset) 😮 not to mention our test :eek::eek:

Welpe

Steve M wrote
Now, if they can't count to make change, how do you expect them to know that 15 is more than 10?

Since we're kind of into derailment land, I was getting something to eat the other day and after thinking about paying with my card, I instead reached for some cash in my wallet and handed it to the cashier. She got the most panic stricken face I've ever seen which I'm guessing was a result of having to make change instead of just swiping the card.

Is it me or are people losing the ability to make change? Is basic math really becoming that difficult?