Uncaught 3rd Strike/Foul Tip

[MD Longhorn]

You don't see anything odd about inventing your own definition of "land", using it to say ONE rule is or was wrong, but then not applying your own definition of "land" and saying all the other rules are wrong too?

Hmm... ok.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You don't see anything odd about inventing your own definition of "land", using it to say ONE rule is or was wrong, but then not applying your own definition of "land" and saying all the other rules are wrong too?

Hmm... ok.

I think the rulebook is wrong. It incorrectly conveys what the rules actually are because it has a definition of batted ball that couldn't possibly comport with the remaining rules in the book.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting I'm doing in being inconsistent in how I use land. (edit to add) And I didn't make up the definition I just looked it up.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

I think the rulebook is wrong. It incorrectly conveys what the rules actually are because it has a definition of batted ball that couldn't possibly comport with the remaining rules in the book.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting I'm doing in being inconsistent in how I use land. (edit to add) And I didn't make up the definition I just looked it up.

Even more strange. You determine what you believe a meaning of a word is, a meaning that would cause about 10 rules to make no sense, and claim THE BOOK is wrong... instead of using a meaning of the word that would be consistent and make every one of those rules make perfect sense.

That makes sense.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Even more strange. You determine what you believe a meaning of a word is, a meaning that would cause about 10 rules to make no sense, and claim THE BOOK is wrong... instead of using a meaning of the word that would be consistent and make every one of those rules make perfect sense.

That makes sense.

Because land doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's what's wrong with the book. If the book said a ball that incinerates in fair or foul territory and I said incinerates doesn't mean is touched would you make the same argument. You could, which proves their is a problem with your argument. The definition of land I used is straight from the dictionary and the dictionary definition matches how it's used.

[3afan]

Originally Posted by youngump

Because land doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's what's wrong with the book. If the book said a ball that incinerates in fair or foul territory and I said incinerates doesn't mean is touched would you make the same argument. You could, which proves their is a problem with your argument. The definition of land I used is straight from the dictionary and the dictionary definition matches how it's used.

uuhhh, what?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Because land doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's what's wrong with the book. If the book said a ball that incinerates in fair or foul territory and I said incinerates doesn't mean is touched would you make the same argument. You could, which proves their is a problem with your argument. The definition of land I used is straight from the dictionary and the dictionary definition matches how it's used.

Here's a thought. If you think it is wrong, fix it. Propose a rule change.