Let see if I can start another 40+ entry thread?

Rule 7-2-4 says

"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above to bat in the proper place."

I believe this is poorly worded or at least needs to be expanded. The way it is written it sounds like the only time a runner is removed from the bases is when the batter-runner made it safely to base and is the next appropriate batter. Is that a correct interpretation?

Situation 1:

R1 on 1B. B3 due up, but B4 bats and makes it safely to first. R1 is now on 2B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. The advance of R1 is nullified. R1 is returned to 1B. B4 is removed from 1B and bats again.


Situation 2:

R1 on 1B. B3 due up, but B5 bats and makes it safely to first. R1 is now on 2B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. The advance of R1 is nullified. R1 is returned to 1B. B5 is removed from 1B. B4 is the next batter. We had to remove B5 because of the advance of R1, even though he/she is not the next proper batter.

Situation 3:

R1 on 3B. B3 due up, but B7 bats and hits a ground ball to F5. F5 holds the runner at third. B7 beats the throw to 1B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. B7 is removed from 1B. B4 is the next batter.

Is it correct to say that anytime the defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch, that the improper batter should be removed from the bases if they made it safely, regardless of whether or not they are the next proper batter or forced the other runners to advance? If we dont always remove them, it is possible that they could still be on base when their proper turn at bat is due up.

For example,

Situation 4:

R1 on 3B. B3 due up, but B6 bats and hits a ground ball to F5. F5 holds the runner at third. B6 beats the throw to 1B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. B4 is the next batter. Lets assume we do not remove B6 from 1B. If B4 walks, this puts B6 at 2B. Now B5 flys out for the 2nd out. Now we still have B6 at 2B and he's due up to bat next. If we didnt remove on the appeal, do we now remove him to bat?

Thanks!
Randall

In all your cases, the defense appealed before the next legal/illegal pitch. Therefore, the batter who should have batted is out, any outs made on a play stand, and any advance is nullified. If the BR reached base, he is always removed from the base.

However, rule 7-2-C-4 is badly written. (What? In the ASA rule book?) Because it is numbered at the same level as 2 and 3, it appears to stand alone as a general rule under 7-2-C. However, it is meant to fall under 7-2-C-3 (if the error is discovered <i>after</i> the next legal/illegal pitch) so the rule should read:

7-2-C-3

If the error is discovered . . . bench or dugout area:

a. The turn at bat of the incorrect batter is legal . . . until reached again in the regular order.

b. No runner shall be removed . . . becomes the legal batter.

Rule 7-2-C-4 pertains to situations where the error is discovered <i>after</i> the next legal/illegal pitch, but it unnecessarily mentions what is done when the error is discovered <i>before</i> the next legal/illegal pitch. So the logic has broken down. Put simply, if we're talking about errors discovered after the next legal/illegal pitch and gratuitously throw in something about part 2, we create confusion.

What this rule is saying is that if because of failure on the part of the defense to appeal, the proper batter happens to be on base, that runner is not removed from the base but remains on base and is skipped over without penalty. Example: B4, proper batter, singles. B2, improper batter, also singles. B3 gets a base on balls. (As soon as a pitch was thrown to B3, B2's at bat became legal. Therefore, B3 was the proper batter and is properly on 1B.) The next legal batter is now B4, but he's on 3B. In this case, "The correct batter merely misses his turn at bat with no penalty. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the legal batter." So B4 is skipped and B5 bats.

So, what's the ruling in this situation.
 

R1 on 2B. B3 due up to bat, however B5 bats improperly, and gets a base hit. R1 now is standing on 3b. B5 is on 1B. Defense appeals before the next pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. Bring R1 back to 2B. B4 bats. Do we remove B5 from 1B or do we leave him and skip over him after B4 bats?


Thanks!
Randall

The defense appealed before the next legal/illegal pitch. You remove B5 from 1B. B4 bats.

Here's a shock, I disagree. It is exactly where it belongs, under 7-2-B&C-EFFECT. Why, you ask? Okay, so you really didn't, but I shall explain regardless.

The comment applies to ANY runner, not just the most recent batter.

B1 gets a single, B4 gets a single and advances R1 to 3B. B2 singles and you once again have runners at the corners.
B3 hits into a force out on R2 and R4 holds at 3B.

Here is where this rule applies to the batting order (7.2). R4, the batter due up according to 7.2.B is on 3B. 7.2.B&C.EFFECT-4 provides direction allowing R4 to be skipped without penalty and the BO move onto B5.

You are both correct (IMO) insofar as what you said that I quoted above.

The rule is confusingly written (badly is too strong), but it is in its proper place.

Here is what the rule is trying to say:[Edited by Dakota on Feb 23rd, 2005 at 01:47 PM]

<b>No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in THEIR proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above. The correct batter merely misses THEIR - OK it's getting tiresome - turn at bat with no penalty. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the legal batter.</b>

It's true that part 4 could stay where it is if written properly, but unfortunately the above still doesn't work.

A runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above has not been taken off to bat in his proper place. He has been removed from the base solely because he does not belong there, whether or not he is supposed to be batting next or soon or whatever.

Part 4 is confusing for many reasons. Though it is written to cover certain situations brought about by the failure of the defense to appeal properly, it muddies the water by unnecessarily making an exception regarding something already covered in part 2, which covers situations in which the defense <i>has</i> properly appealed. When the defense has properly appealed, the situation where the next legal batter is on base cannot arise. Therefore, jettison the section about "(2) above."

I suggest the following for part 4, and then I agree it can stay where it is:

4. If the failure of the defense to appeal an improper batter results in a later situation where a runner on base becomes the next legal batter, such correct batter merely misses his turn at bat with no penalty and stays on his base. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the next legal batter.

This could be followed by an example such as the one I gave or the one Mike gave.

This rule says exactly what it means - you guys are reading an extra comma or semicolon or something into it somewhere.

No runner is removed from the base to bat in their proper position. Stop. Exception (noted by the word "except"!) - a runner removed because of (2) above.

In other words, unless the runner was removed already, you do NOT remove a player from a base in order to bat - that batter's spot is simply skipped with no penalty.

Very easy. Don't make it harder than it is.

We're not, ASA is....
 

I like the way you've written the rule. Unfortunately, you didn't write the ASA rulebook. The rule actually says....

No runner shall be removed from the base occupied except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above to bat in the proper place.

The problem is that rule 2 never mentions that the batter-runner is removed. It's implied and therein lies the problem. To me the problem with rule 7-2-C-4 is the sentence "to bat in the proper place". It makes it sound like the player is removed to bat next. This is not the case. The runner is removed, period. I just wish the rulebook said as much.

The problem (i.e. the source of the confusion) is an error in syntax of the "throw the cow over the fence some hay" variety (what is thrown, cow or hay?).

The rule says, To which player does the phrase "to bat in the proper place" apply?

If it is the BR (as a strict reading of the rules of English syntax would say), then this causes all kinds of misreading and confusion.

Obviously, the phrase "to bat in the proper place" is meant to apply to "No runner."

Hence, it is meant to be understood this way,

<b>"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in the proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above."</b>

You're right about the syntax, but in this case it doesn't matter which "to bat in the proper place" refers to, because either way the sentence is factually wrong. <b>No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in his proper place,</b> whether under (2) or otherwise. As soon as a condition is put on this statement, it becomes untrue.

Men can't flap their arms and fly. TRUE.
Men can't flap their arms and fly except men who eat peanut butter. FALSE.

No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in the proper place = TRUE.
No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in the proper place except [any true statement] = FALSE.

The sentence has many other problems, such as the fact that you can't remove a runner who has already been removed (no runner shall be removed from a base occupied . . . except a runner who has been taken off the base).

The batter-runner who has been taken off base by the umpire as in (2) above is <i>not</i> removed to bat in the proper place. He is removed because the defense appealed when he reached base after batting improperly. It has nothing to do with where he bats.

The statement can be rewritten as a corollary:

"The only runner who can be removed from a base occupied to bat in the proper place is the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above."

But this statement is false.

The more I look at this, the more I think it may the worst written rule in the book. Quite an achievement for its author.

What am I missing, greymule?

Runners irrelevant. B1 due up. B2 bats. B2 gets a hit. Defense appeals BOO. B1 declared out. B2 is the proper batter now due up. B2 removed from base and bats in the proper place. This is enforcement of 7-2-C-2, right? B2 is removed from base, right? B2 now bats in the proper order, right?

Well, it's either:

I'm one of the smartest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

or

I'm one of the dumbest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

Go figure.

I know which one <b><font size=6>I</font></b> think it is! :D

<b>What am I missing, greymule?

Runners irrelevant. B1 due up. B2 bats. B2 gets a hit. Defense appeals BOO. B1 declared out. B2 is the proper batter now due up. B2 removed from base and bats in the proper place. This is enforcement of 7-2-C-2, right? B2 is removed from base, right? B2 now bats in the proper order, right?</b>

It <i>is</i> enforcement of 7-2-C-2. However, B2 is not removed <i>so that he can bat in his proper place,</i> as part 4 seems to imply. He is removed because he was an improper batter and the defense appealed. Whether he is to bat or not, he is still taken off the base. This is where part 4 fails. There is no reason whatsoever for part 4 to mention part 2. When it does, it creates unnecessary confusion.

I too never had any problem understanding the rule, but it was not because I read the book. It was because I knew the baseball rule and figured out that ASA was following that, though I admit I had a hard time with part 4 and eventually gave up on it, assuming the literal interpretation didn't quite match what they really meant. Had I relied on the book alone, I would not have understood the rule.

In all honesty, I would be interested to know why some people have no problem understanding the ASA book and why others, like me, have such a hard time with it. It may boil down to the fact that different readers have different expectations from the book.

OK - I now understand your point. I don't think this, though, is a source of confusion, even though the wording is technically incorrect.I suspect it has to do with the same reason my "throw the cow over the fence some hay" example doesn't really confuse people who know about cows, fences, and hay. It is not logical that this really means throw a cow over the fence. So, readers, correct the mistake while reading without even thinking about it.

Just as clearly, the rule does not mean that the only time the BR is removed from the base is when she is the proper batter. Therefore, it MUST mean what it actually means.

Mike & everyone: I understood the rule, too. (So, Mike, I guess you get to choose why that is so about me, too.) However, due to the confused syntax, I also understand why some others might be confused by it.

OK. I think we understand each other. In my opinion, the insertion of unnecessary and technically incorrect language was confusing. Perhaps this affects me more than most people since my job is to see that writing is unambiguous.

Now:

<b>"throw the cow over the fence some hay"</b>

Or "She answered an ad for someone who could dance on the campus bulletin board."

It is true that no one will suffer permanant misunderstanding about the cow and the hay. People find the faulty syntax (not the grammar) humorous because, for a brief moment, it appears that someone is saying, "Throw the cow over the fence." When the listener hears "some hay." The meaning is clear.

Technically, "cow" at first appears to be the direct object of "throw" until "some hay" appears as the true direct object and renders "cow" the indirect object (throw <i>to the cow . . .</i>).

But there's still a minor ambiguity. The phrase "over the fence" probably modifies "throw," but it could modify "cow," as in, Q: Which cow? A: The cow over the fence, not the cow in the gully or the cow with the brown spots. Perhaps not likely, but plausible.

I have seen business and professional documents that have caused serious problems because an alternative meaning created by the same type of faulty syntax was plausible enough for readers to accept it as the true meaning.

As with rule books, the people doing the writing know what they mean, so they don't necessarily see the ways that people can misinterpret it.

But even Shakespeare wrote ambiguous lines, lines of which scholars still debate the meaning, and sometimes because of syntactical glitches similar to the one with the cow and the hay.

Anyone ever figure out why there is English and then there is American English?

Could it be due to generations removed from the English colonies had difficulty understanding the manner in which it was spoken, so the culture naturally modified THEIR language to the point where it facilitated communication among the citizens?

Or is it possible that it just became accepted because it was easier than teaching the King/Queen's English to those who never hear it?

Or is it because Americans are just too lazy to even attempt to get it correct?

And, yes, I know you should not begin a sentence with a conjunction, but in many circles, this has become an acceptable manner of expression and I used it just because I know it's got to irk someone on this board ;)

Admit it. In this country, people have started to write and type in the same manner in which they speak. There is no way to correct them without being labeled an obnoxious idiot. We live in an apathetic society that just does not care.

Rant off!

I don't care. :cool:

King's English:
http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resear...OE/aelfric.gif

Translate to American, please! ;)

Yeah, right. Don King, maybe!

You made that mess, you clean it up.

<b>And, yes, I know you should not begin a sentence with a conjunction.</b>

Don't believe everything your teachers told you.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day."

"And the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago."

"And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all."

Regarding British versus American English, I often have the task of converting an entire ad campaign, journal article, or informational layout from British to American English or vice versa. For pharmaceuticals, the British also often use ™ where we use ®.

It's mostly spellings (color/colour; program/programme; ongoing/on-going; well-being/wellbeing; jewelry/jewellery; randomize/randomise; judgment/judgement; practice/practise; and zillions of others). The British also use different punctuation. And some common British words have meanings different from ours.

In America, if you visit someone at her residence, you "drop by her apartment." In the UK, you "knock her up." Some cross-cultural confusion possible there.

The British have a different word for cigarettes, too.

Winston Churchill said the UK and America were two countries separated by a common language.

If softball gets popular in the UK, someone will have to translate the ASA rule book into British English. In the UK, F1 pitches underarm, not underhand.

<font size = 5>IP</font> Would like to see that anyway.
:)

Because we have discussed what is involved with understanding the written word, I thought contributors to this thread would be interested to learn the consensus that was reached at a recent national forum of marketing consultants who specialize in pharmaceuticals:

<b>"The panel [of experts] reported that patient-education materials that are produced by pharmaceutical companies have to be written at the fourth- to the sixth-grade reading level if they are to be effective."</b>

(For the benefit of readers of this board, the <i>New York Times</i> is considered to be written at the eighth-grade level. Keep in mind, however, that in many American schools, few eighth-graders read at the eighth-grade level. Sometimes none do.)

Softball is very popular in the UK. They are part of the ESF and basically use modified ISF rules. I'm sure we have a few umpires on this board which work ESF games.

http://www.europeansoftball.org/