The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 08, 2005, 07:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 517
Question

WMB made a statement in another thread that I wanted to make a new thread on:

"7-2-2 Effect specifically states that the improper batter is not called out. “Any other outs on the play stand.: Mike’s beloved 3 outs on a BOO will not happen in NFHS games.

The Test said “all outs made on the play stand. The Test is WRONG!

WMB"
*******************************

That is what I thought too, but then I went back and reviewed the rule.

The 2005 Rule book states:

7-2-2 Effect- "The umpire shall declare the batter who should have batted out (not the improper batter). Any other outs on the play stand."

The 2004 rule book is exactly the same.

My 2003 rule book is MIA.

The 2002 rule book said:
7-2-2, "Exception: Any outs made on the play stand. An out for batting out of order supersedes an out made by the improper batter on a play."

[This was the wording from the time I started Fed untill 2002.]

I do not recall this being listed as a rule change in 2003, but I would argue the rule now allows an out made by the improper batter to stand, in addition to the out on the batter who should have batted. It appears the rule now is congruent with ASA (as I understand Mikes interp of ASA.)

IMO the phrase in ( ) in the curent rule, is there to make clear that the proper batter is out per the penalty to clarify who should be the next proper batter. If Fed still wanted to supersede the out made by the improper batter, they would not have removed the 2002 language.

Further, the words "any other" is an inclusive phrase which in no way can be interperted to mean one of the other outs made during playing action is not included.

This is a long way of saying the test is correct per the rule. I'm not sure if the Rule Committee meant to change the rule or not, but they have. It would not be the first time we have had a "stelth" change to Fed rules, or an inadverant change.

I'm interested in your comments.

Roger Greene


[Edited by Roger Greene on Feb 8th, 2005 at 07:56 PM]
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1