Does the run score or is it a timming play?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

8.2.M.1&2 are both true statements. Yet for an umpire to make determinations and apply rules, s/he must consider the entire book, not just a specific word, line, sentence or paragraph alone.

A ball which does hit or bound over the orange portion only is a foul ball since that portion of the base is in foul territory (2.3.H) and at no time did the batted ball meet the qualification of a fair ball as set forth in Rule 1.

Lacking any qualifying statement in the definition of a foul ball involving the double base, a ball which hits ANY portion of the white must be a fair ball.

So we're almost to agreement. A ball which hits or bounds over any part of the white base is a fair ball.

And you've now added the qualifier to 8.2.m.2 in that you've stated if the ball hits or bounds over only the colored portion it is a foul ball. This is different than how the rule reads, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Like I said, 99 44/100s of umpires will call a fair ball if a ball hits both white/colored portions of the base at the same time.

So why isn't the rule wordsmithed a bit to eliminate the non-optimal, mutually exclusive logic?

Say what you will about taking all the rules as a collective whole and applying them as appropriate. I can accept that.

I will say that the two passages, one right after another, which are basically an If/Then set of statements fail the common English interpretation. [Although all of us know what "they" really meant.] Kinda like that rule with the pitcher having 20 seconds and a violation was an illegal pitch but no runners advanced because everyone knew what "they" really meant. But that one got changed, didn't it?

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

So we're almost to agreement. A ball which hits or bounds over any part of the white base is a fair ball.

And you've now added the qualifier to 8.2.m.2 in that you've stated if the ball hits or bounds over only the colored portion it is a foul ball. This is different than how the rule reads, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Like I said, 99 44/100s of umpires will call a fair ball if a ball hits both white/colored portions of the base at the same time.

I didn't say, nor insinuate this is what the rule states.

So why isn't the rule wordsmithed a bit to eliminate the non-optimal, mutually exclusive logic?

Say what you will about taking all the rules as a collective whole and applying them as appropriate. I can accept that.

I will say that the two passages, one right after another, which are basically an If/Then set of statements fail the common English interpretation. [Although all of us know what "they" really meant.] Kinda like that rule with the pitcher having 20 seconds and a violation was an illegal pitch but no runners advanced because everyone knew what "they" really meant. But that one got changed, didn't it?

Ted

I don't think it needs a change, but then again, I understand what it means by understanding how one rule complements the other.

Hey, maybe I'm one of those "they" people.

[wadeintothem]

Count me among the "They"s; pretty clear to me.

You can never grab one sentence of the rule book and "Holy Grail" that sentence. You must take the entirety of the book, the definitions, case plays, rules supplements and understand the reasoning, intent, application, and enforcement of the rule.

That is our job as officials; we must go beyond a single sentence and understand "ASA Rules".

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Count me among the "They"s; pretty clear to me.

You can never grab one sentence of the rule book and "Holy Grail" that sentence. You must take the entirety of the book, the definitions, case plays, rules supplements and understand the reasoning, intent, application, and enforcement of the rule.

That is our job as officials; we must go beyond a single sentence and understand "ASA Rules".

For the "they" crowd - I'm guessing this group is made up of people who have been officiating for decades and you know what the intent of this particular rule is. As do I. Intended things have been re-written in the past. Ever written a query and when you got it back you thought "that's not what I wanted", but when you re-checked your parameters found out that that's what you asked for?

I don't think I'm Holy Grailing anything, just trying to point out that two different sentences, one after another, are not worded properly.

And Irish, you most definitely did say, and insinuate this is what the rule states when you add your own interpretation of "only the colored" of the double-base. Those are your added words to support your argument. But we're in violent agreement about what the call should be. We're just not in agreement that the ASA rules cited are gospel.

Errors in the manual on page 217:

GOOD PELVIC ALLIGNMENT (GPA): The alignment of the Plate Umpire’s pelvic with the outside front corner of home plate.

The pink "ALLIGNMENT" should be "ALIGNMENT" [one "L"].

The red "pelvic" should be "pelvis".

Do I know what "they" mean? Yup! Are there mistakes in that passage? Yup! Do I want to holy grail them? He!! no!

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Ted,

Have you ever seen the ASA or any other softball rule book on the NYT or anyone else's Best Selling list?

This is a publication created as a tool of communications for utilization in conjunction with numerous interpretations, clinics, schools and case plays documentation.

It is not supposed to be a "good read" or qualify as an award-winning essay.

Want to be picky? Where does it state anywhere that a player must run to 1B, 2B, 3B & home, in that order?

To cover every what if or possible scenario, you would need to create a tome and buy another equipment bag just to carry the book.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Ted,

Have you ever seen the ASA or any other softball rule book on the NYT or anyone else's Best Selling list?

This is a publication created as a tool of communications for utilization in conjunction with numerous interpretations, clinics, schools and case plays documentation.

It is not supposed to be a "good read" or qualify as an award-winning essay.

Want to be picky? Where does it state anywhere that a player must run to 1B, 2B, 3B & home, in that order?

To cover every what if or possible scenario, you would need to create a tome and buy another equipment bag just to carry the book.

Best selling list? Roughly 40k-50k copies a year for how many years, albeit different editions. It might qualify!

A tool of communications should be as correct as possible in the given language that it is published. I can forgive transgressions if it has been translated to other languages where various phrases often get confused. But whatever is written/printed/published should be correct. And "numerious interpretations" should be a red flag and a quality concern. While it might not be able to be 100%, the fewer possibilities for "interpretation" should be the goal.

5.5.A.1 Now this is a simple one that I get. I start from home and go on a journey, making various stops along the way. My first venue is first base, my second sortie is second base, my third visit is third base and my final destination is home at last. But I guess that's why they called those white squares first, second, and third base, respectively. And if you don't follow the logical 1, 2, 3, 4 progression on your journey, you do not pass go, do not collect $200, and go directly to jail.

I think the case books are a very helpful tool and also mitigate the need for any tomes. The rules themselves probably follow that 80-20 rule so common in many aspects of our lives. There are excpetions that require discussion or correction and examples [case plays] are recorded to help us with the uncommon or flat out weird. But simplistic passages that tell us how to have our pelvics [sic] alligned [sic] should be run through spell and grammar checks.

Ted

[Dakota]

Ted,

I'm usually among the first to criticize the poor grammar, spelling, syntax, sentence construction, thoroughness in revisions, and just plain curious sentences in the ASA rule book.

But, on the fair/foul double-base thing, I don't see the problem, seriously. What, exactly, is confusing about the rule?

[marvin]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Want to be picky? Where does it state anywhere that a player must run to 1B, 2B, 3B & home, in that order

In NFHS it is in rule 8-1-1 and 9-1-1.

In NCAA it is 12.29

[SRW]

Why is this hard to comprehend?

Pretend the colored base wasn't there. If the ball hit the corner of the white base or bounded over it, you'd call a fair ball, right? Why does it matter if there's some safety bag there? It doesn't.

Rulebook right, ballfield wrong. Don't let it be you.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by marvin

In NFHS it is in rule 8-1-1 and 9-1-1.

In NCAA it is 12.29

And if ASA would just add the words "in the order listed" to 5.5.A.1, they would have it covered as well.