Says whom? or who? or SAY WHAT!?!? Fuggitaboutit!

Remember, if we learned nothing else from the original Smokey and the Bandit, how smart you are all depends on where you are standing at the time. That includes pronunciations of certain words.

Copy from eteamz...
 

Here is just one example of where editing is required (or at least would help.)

All this needs to say is...

<font color=blue>...when first base is unoccupied or when there are two outs.</font>

It doesn't need the 1. and the 2. with the logical hole between them!

Re: Copy from eteamz...
 

I agree. However, unless you've been through the process, it is not that easy to understand. It is unbelieveable the number of people that have a certain thought or belief inside their head that have problems with logical assesment of a statement to the point they will accept it.

When I had my two proposed changes last year, many of the people I spoke to individually addressed understood what I was trying to do. However, there were so many that are so afraid of change or have a difficult time understanding the rules, they just opt to kill anything that they cannot grasp.

Another thing you need to remember is that many rules are also pieced together and develop over the years due to advanced equipment or ability to find and exploit certain loopholes.

Or you have people that just believe if you do everything one step at a time, all will fall into place. That seems to be the problem with this particular rule. Whoever put it together was so bent on covering the exceptions with two outs, they developed a rule overlooked the obvious.

Great catch, Dakota! I had never actually read that rule, since I knew that ASA simply followed the baseball rule. But if those are the 2 circumstances in which the batter is <i>not</i> out, then with 2 outs and 1B unoccupied, he <i>is</i> out! Neither criterion is met.

Your revision is clearer and more concise. Should we keep "at the time of the pitch," or is that phrase superfluous?

Actually, a coach on eteamz noticed this - I just blatently stole it.A good example of why editors (plural) would be required - I didn't leave it out intentionally, and it helps (IMO) clarify the steal scenario.

Mike,

I understand the rules evolve rather than are written all at once, and that leads to some odd phraseology, some seeming contradictions, and (as in this case) some logical holes or inconsistencies.

Apart from a formal rule change (where the meaning of the rule is changed, or a new rule is added or an old one deleted), is there no provision in the way the rule book is handled under the by-laws or whatever for editorial clarifications (no change in meaning)?

It seems that it would be good if the person or committee in charge of the rule book would have the authority to re-write for clarity or simplicity or aid in understanding without requiring a vote by all the delegates.

But, maybe that is what POEs and case plays are for.