Interference over Foul Territory

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by greymule

I doubt that's the reason. Writing always shrinks with good editing. When I edit an article for a medical journal, the text usually shrinks 10 to 15 percent. In other words, 10 pages shrink to 9 or even 8½.

Well, that's a medical journal which IMO is a totally different writing style. The rule book is written more like a power point presentation- with "bullets" of information.

What I'm saying is that they are making less "bullets" and not spacing the rules properly and condensing the "bullets" into long run-on sentences which are (poorly) broken up with semi-colons.

A prime example of this would be 8-4-2g in your FED book

[greymule]

I see what you mean about the bullets. But look at this:

NCAA wording: "A legally batted ball that while both the ball and runner are in foul territory, the runner interferes with a defensive player's attempt to field a batted ball." (28 words)

Edited wording: "A legally batted ball that is over foul territory when a runner interferes with an attempt to field it." (19 words)

Only a defensive player can field a ball, so we can dispense with the obvious "a defensive player's." Now why the original stipulates that the runner has to be in foul territory is beyond me. If the ball is over foul territory, the fielder is straddling the line, and the interfering runner is on the fair side of the line, would we call the play any differently?

[johnnyg08]

isn't it fair to say that a ball in the air is nothing due to wind issues, a ball hooking, etc...I've seen plenty of balls in the air, in fair territory, land foul...where was the post in here about the ball not being anything which is why he place batter on 1B?

[fitump56]

[quote=PeteBooth]

Which begs the age old question

When are the Official Rules of baseball going to be re-written to "take-out" these ambiguities?
Pete Booth

Your choice, Pete:

a) No time before the Rapture
b) Before the Rapture
c) Right before the Rapture

MLB has a vested interest in not writing a definitive set of rules.

[gordon30307]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Which begs the age old question

When are the Official Rules of baseball going to be re-written to "take-out" these ambiguities?

Joe West could just as easily have ruled B1 out and keep R3 at third base.

Big difference for the Offense. In one instance they still have R3 in the other they only have B1.

Pete Booth

You know what they say (I'd like to meet "they" some day) sometimes you have to umpire.