From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:00:28 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <Bv6yyy.69o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>
>>>You can't retouch something you haven't touched.
>
>>I think you're grasping at semantic straws here.  The baseball rulebook
>>is notoriously badly written.  I claim that "retouch" here is used
>>without the thought that the runner might have been stupid enough to
>>have already missed the base once.  
>
>The rulebook does deal with a wide variety of stupid things the
>players can do, including missing bases.  Why should we try and twist
>what the rulebook says?  The rules were meant to be taken literally.
>(Although, I agree that they could be written better.)

It is y'all who are trying to twist the rules, claming that a "missed
base" isn't a missed base until the next base is touched, with no
evidence other than the "re" in "retouch."

The fact that the rules are badly written means that they must get
interpreted according to tradition and good sense, as opposed to a strictly
literal sense.  Even a quick perusual of the rulebook shows that
it has evolved by a series of rule challages and clarifications.  If
you wish to claim that your interpretation of a missed base is
plausible enough for a protest, well maybe it is.  But to claim
that it is a more reasonable interpretation than mine seems to
me ludricrious.

>You can change "retouch" to "touch"
>>and have the same meaning in all cases except the specific one that
>>we are arguing about
>
>Naturally, if you changed the rulebook, it would support your position.
>But it doesn't currently.  

This is a preposterous statement.  I claim that the rulebook is
poorly worded and suggest an alternative wording, and you say 
that I'm changing the rule.

In fact, I doubt that if this came up that it would be reworded.  More
likely, a smaller-type clarification would be added.  Or the rulebook
wouldn't be changed at all, since your position is so silly.

>I agree with Tony.  You can't retouch something you haven't touched.

Lord, I feel like I'm arguing with the Mad Hatter.

The baseball rules committee could never have meant the two letters "re"
to carry that much weight.  Y'all are claiming that those two letters mean
that a runner can miss second, go almost to third, the miss second
again and head back to first base without liabilty to be put out
on appeal at second.  If that were really the case they'd have
gone on about it at length.  Gee, haven't you read how many words
they write explaining batting order appeals?

You seem to be saying that baserunning proceedes point-to-point rather
than in a directional basis.  Extending your arguments, a runner
could run to second and touch it, mistakenly think the ball was caught
and head base five steps toward first, then proceed on to third stepping
*over* second base.  After all, he already touched it, didn't he?

Well, it doesn't work that way.  I claim that the obvious meaning
of the rulebook is that a runner must touch each base each time
he passes by it in either direction.   Any other interpretation
seems to me to be an attempt to look for a loophole in the rulebook.
But baseball isn't law, and loopholes aren't allowed.  The usual
response to a protest based on a loophole is to disallow it and
maybe reword the rulebook.

One final statement, and then I'm prepared to drop the whole matter.
I regard the idea that a runner can go eight-five feet past a
missed base with impunity to be preposterous.  The idea that he
could then *again* miss that base in the reverse direction is
ludicrious.  The whole idea makes a mockery of the concept of
baserunning, which is that you run from base to base, touching
each base as you go by.  It is true that by straining the written
rules you could interpret them that way, but I regard this interpretation
as sufficiently bizarre so as never to come up in actual play.