The Simple Things

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Because if you only had first and second listed for the condition then it wouldn't be in effect if the bases were loaded.

Before you say "BUT!" - think it through again.

BUT the statement/rule is worded for the stupid.

The requirement is met when there is a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base. If the bases are loaded, is that requirement still not met? Is there not still a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base?

Trying to justify the stance that too many runners on base negates a given rule is just as moronic as all the idiots screaming "it's in the hole" on every tee shot.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BUT the statement/rule is worded for the stupid.

The requirement is met when there is a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base. If the bases are loaded, is that requirement still not met? Is there not still a runner on 1st base and a runner on 2nd base?

Trying to justify the stance that too many runners on base negates a given rule is just as moronic as all the idiots screaming "it's in the hole" on every tee shot.

It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

Judge: You have been found guilty in two counts of murder and are sentenced to life in prison.
Criminal: But your honor, I didn't kill two people, I killed three.
Judge: Three? Well, in that case you cannot be guilty of killing only two people. You are free to go. Thanks for stopping by.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Judge: You have been found guilty in two counts of murder and are sentenced to life in prison.
Criminal: But your honor, I didn't kill two people, I killed three.
Judge: Three? Well, in that case you cannot be guilty of killing only two people. You are free to go. Thanks for stopping by.

Doesn't work that way. There would be separate counts for each person, not one count of killing two. You'd be found guilty twice - once for each.

Nice try though.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Doesn't work that way. There would be separate counts for each person, not one count of killing two. You'd be found guilty twice - once for each.

Nice try though.

Really? That's the way they do it?

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's worded for the connivers. Their argument would be that "It wasn't runners on first and second, it was runners on first, second, and third." IOW "It's only in effect when there are just runners on first and second". Technically correct. A lot of laws/rules get written/rewritten becasue some clever person found the loophole. The wording you don't like fixes it.

This, and I've discovered there many more of these types in softball than baseball.