2001 Fed case book query

[oregonblue]

Please compare case book 8.4.1, situation C, with 8.4.2, situation P. Seems to me that if 8.4.1g doesn't apply to the BR in the 1st cite, then it doesn't apply to the BR in the 2nd cite. Therefore, in situation P, the mention of the BR's relationship to the 45 foot line appears to be irrelevant. Comments?

Pat, Rogue Valley, Oregon

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by oregonblue
Please compare case book 8.4.1, situation C, with 8.4.2, situation P. Seems to me that if 8.4.1g doesn't apply to the BR in the 1st cite, then it doesn't apply to the BR in the 2nd cite. Therefore, in situation P, the mention of the BR's relationship to the 45 foot line appears to be irrelevant. Comments? Pat, Rogue Valley, Oregon

You've a good eye. The first situation, 8.4.1C, has been in the book since 1979 at least, when it was styled Play 264. (My earlier books burned.) It reiterated an important principle; namely, the 45-foot lane applies only when the ball is being fielded to first for a play on the batter-runner.

Situation 8.4.2P entered the book in 1994 as Play 8.4.2s. Since it is the newer play, it must be viewed as the "current" interpretation. The new ruling is in conflict with the language of 8-4-1g, but it must be considered the controlling interpretation now for FED.

On McGriff's you referred to the conflict between the two cases as NFHS "wierdness" [sic]. My question: Why should "changing a rule" by official interpretation be weird in the NFHS but all right (NAPBL) for the OBR?