Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
As soon as I saw Mike's post, I knew your response would be something like this.
The book doesn't parse out a difference between cases when both the ball and bat are still in motion when they touch. No "Do this when the ball is moving faster than the bat, but Do something else if the bat is moving faster than the ball". No "Do something completely different if the bat happens to be moving away from the ball instead of toward it".
If a moving bat and a ball collide - rule accordingly.
If the bat is not moving and the ball hits it, rule nothing.
This is not new.
From your other posts, I have assumed you are not an internet umpire - sounds like you work JUCO and HS, as well as ASA. It's completely inconceivable to me that this has not been discussed ad nauseum in nearly every clinic you've attended. I've probably seen this explained upward of 40 times. But if it turns out you are an internet umpire (this applies to any of you that are - not just talking to Manny here).
For God's sake, if Mike or Steve tells you something --- BELIEVE IT. You're not going to get a more correct response than from them ... and that includes the vast majority of your clinicians.
|
But surely the book wouldn't need to do that. You can determine what hit what pretty easily and even if it did need to, not doing so can't make the rule something it's not.
As a general rule, I think it's a bad thing that there are interpretations that don't match the book. When I go to study the rule book to learn the bat/ball rules, I'm not going to see this, I'm going to see a rule about what hits what and then I have to remember that there's an interpretation that changes the rule. (Which makes this forum a good thing!)
(And if Manny had just believed Mike about RS24, than neither of them would know that it doesn't in fact say that)