fielders yelling

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

this is just getting kinda ridiculous now bc we are talking about a hypothetical rule that someone hypothetically might make, but theres 0 chance of this ever happening. BUT, you must have not notice the part where I said "....including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO...."

The hypothetical was only brought up because you wanted an explicit rule.

My position is it is best without the explicit rule / definition.

If the intent is to allow the USC call to be made for acts not of the same kind as listed, adding "but not limited to" is of marginal use if what follows is a specific list of egregious acts. The list itself would tend to limit the scope of acts considered even with the "but not limited to" phrase.

Because something is annoying does not make it illegal or unsporting.