Thread: Rule question
View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 24, 2013, 02:41pm
MD Longhorn MD Longhorn is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Because an absolute literal reading of the rule and effect only appear to allow there to be a correction/award to the offended team (defensive), not to correct the obvious jeopardy resulting to BOTH teams.
Why is the assumption that the only offended team can be the defense? Especially since their issues were cleaned up by 1 and 2.

I'll ask here what I asked there... if the intent of the rule was to ONLY kill the ball and rule the batter out ... what's the purpose of the 3rd part? There would be no need at all to write in the 3rd part... the rule would simply state to kill the ball and rule the batter-runner out.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote