Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja
I disagree with that statement. The rules are the rules, the case book is not the rules. The case plays should be the interpretations of the rules, BUT they don't cover each and every situation, nor do are they always correct. We had a situation several seasons ago in the casebook for track and field which stated one thing, but it failed to take into account a different rule which was more applicable to the situation. There was a clarification issues late in the season to the caseplay, and the following season the case play was changed.
Going strictly by the casebook doesn't always work because slight differences is the rules make a big difference, which is why clarity of the rules needs to be made, and Fed has a bad issue with this in my opinion.
|
The casebook provides plays to help interpret the rules. If there is a case play that is wrong, then someone needs to point that out to the organization's headquarters. There should never be a situation where a case play doesn't follow the rule.
You keep pointing out that the case play Hugo provided isn't the same as Mike's play in the original post. True. But the point of the case play is that it highlights the FED position that when a runner misses a base and was forced at the time she missed it, any appeal out of that runner is still considered a force out, regardless of what happened to a trail runner afterward. That's 180 out of how ASA treats it.
I personally don't think it's confusing.