BRD on lodged batted ball

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

I'm sorry if you took this wrong Carl. I am the sort that needs to ask his own questions to clarify things.

So, then, if I have sorted things out correctly:

1. FED as a national organization has not ruled specifically on the play in question.

2. The interpretation of the FED rule as it applies to this play in the BRD is yours.

3. Some state FED interpreters disagree with that interpretation.

Is this a fair representation of where we stand, or have I missed something?

No more than usual. (grin)

Example: Able should bat but Baker bats and singles. Before a pitch, the defense appeals that Baker was an improper batter.

NOW, if I include that in the BRD, with a ruling, am I making an interpretation?

No: I'm illustrating what the language means. Well, at least, that's what I think I'm doing.

Likewise, my Play 26-22 (Hey, go next door and look over your friend's shoulder - another but smaller grin), which appeared eight straight years in the BRD without a whimper of opposition, is NOT an interpretation.

It's not what I think ought to be the ruling.
It's not what I think a FED interpreter might do.

We all know that English may not be the native tounge of those who toil in the FED vineyard.

My play (Did you get back yet?) simply shows what "lodged" means. "Stuck." Maybe I'll say "stuck."

American Heritage says: "Lodge: To be or become embedded." I'd say a ball that remains in a glove even after it's thrown some distance across a baseball diamond is "embedded," uh, I mean "stuck."