Proposed 2011 ASA Rule Changes Part I

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

If it's worded as posted it has a problem. Because it now reads, in it's most natural form, that a ball is fair if it touches only the white portion of first base.

What it means to read is that it is fair if it touches the white portion of first base and not if it only touched the orange portion.

I know exactly what they were going for here and you do to; but if they had to add it then somebody didn't quite get it and I don't think it'll help to reword it ambiguously.

You better open up the rule book to the rule being changed. I think you are elsewhere.

The present rule 1.Fair Ball. E presently reads "Touches first, second or third base." Now go to 2.3.H where first base is defined as 15X30.

This change is to bring it in line with 2.3.H and 8.2.M.1. The wording is fine for the purpose meant.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You better open up the rule book to the rule being changed. I think you are elsewhere.

The present rule 1.Fair Ball. E presently reads "Touches first, second or third base." Now go to 2.3.H where first base is defined as 15X30.

This change is to bring it in line with 2.3.H and 8.2.M.1. The wording is fine for the purpose meant.

I understand what they're going for and why they're doing it. What I'm not doing very well communicating is how they missed it. If someone were to open the book and read that rule having no idea what a fair ball was and they saw that it was a fair ball if it touched first (white part only). They would be wrong but well within the realm of reasonable reading to say that if it did not touch the white part only that it was foul ball (and avoiding that is the whole point of the change)

A simple change to the change could make this completely unambiguous. Touches the white portion of first base, second base, or third base. It's less words and easier to parse.
________
PinayPORNSTARxx live

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I understand what they're going for and why they're doing it. What I'm not doing very well communicating is how they missed it. If someone were to open the book and read that rule having no idea what a fair ball was and they saw that it was a fair ball if it touched first (white part only). They would be wrong but well within the realm of reasonable reading to say that if it did not touch the white part only that it was foul ball (and avoiding that is the whole point of the change)

A simple change to the change could make this completely unambiguous. Touches the white portion of first base, second base, or third base. It's less words and easier to parse.

WTF are you talking about?

Guess we are going to have to walk through this a step at a time.

Are you aware that this is NOT a change to the existing rule?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

WTF are you talking about?

Guess we are going to have to walk through this a step at a time.

Are you aware that this is NOT a change to the existing rule?

It's a change to part of a very ambiguous rule that we all know how to get right anyway.

Reading from a 2008 rulebook since that's what I have available at the moment.
Rule 1, definitions, Fair Ball
A legally batted ball that:
E. Touches first, second or third base.

8.2.M Double base ...
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is fair.
2. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is foul.

Now, we all know that A is meant to trump B. A ball bounding over both is fair and one hitting both is fair. That's the rule, even though it isn't written down anywhere. If you didn't know how to call this and had to figure it out from the book, you'd be hopelessly lost.

Now the new definition which does not fix 8.2.M will read:
Rule 1.Fair.E Touches first (white portion only), second or third base.

which is meant to make the two consistent. Perhaps it isn't meant to solve the obvious problem there. I had assumed it was. But it could incredibly simply. Just by changing the definition of Fair to read:

Rule 1.Fair.E Touches white portion of first base, second base or third base.

If they did that they could even eliminate the part of 8.2.M. that is ambiguous.
________
Wiki Vaporizer

[greymule]

"Rule 1.Fair.E Touches first (white portion only), second or third base."

Of course we know how to call this, but if it were part of instructions or a legal document, it would have to read, "Touches first (any part of the white portion) . . ."

As written, the wording could be argued to mean, "Touches only the white portion of first" [not both portions]. The ambiguity could also be eliminated by deleting "only": i.e., "Touches first (white portion), second . . ."