Is there a hole in 8-7-J

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.

It wasn't THAT long ago and it took two years to get it changed onced discovered (the NUS addressed it, but forgot to make the change). Never saw Bob S. so upset as when I asked him how it was that change wasn't made.

The wording was the B becomes a BR when the catcher fails to catch the third strike before the ball touches the ground and there are (1) fewer than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch, or (2) there are two outs and first base is occupied.

Obviously, this wording does not account for two outs and first base being empty. The change was made to the present wording. That change was initiated due to a post on one of these boards, maybe this one.

However, to make Dave's point, we all knew the proper application through case plays and rules clinics.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It wasn't THAT long ago and it took two years to get it changed onced discovered (the NUS addressed it, but forgot to make the change). Never saw Bob S. so upset as when I asked him how it was that change wasn't made.

The wording was the B becomes a BR when the catcher fails to catch the third strike before the ball touches the ground and there are (1) fewer than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch, or (2) there are two outs and first base is occupied.

Obviously, this wording does not account for two outs and first base being empty. The change was made to the present wording. That change was initiated due to a post on one of these boards, maybe this one.

However, to make Dave's point, we all knew the proper application through case plays and rules clinics.

I brought it up to support my view that we need to know the intent behind the rule and that sometimes the rule book doesn't clearly define the intent. This is obviously a extreme example in that there was a blatant error. However, the same philosophy applies when the error is not so blatant.