baseball rules - ever checked for consitency?

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Because in some games it makes a difference in how the game is played and in other games it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if my pawns are made of wood or metal … chess is exactly the same game. But if you can’t play tennis with a wooden tennis ball.

And you can’t play tennis with a metal racket, or a large one, or wearing anything other than white. :dubious:

Of course you could play tennis with any type of ball you want, if the rules allow it.

It might not provide the same satisfaction, but rules evolve. If it is woth doing, you can do it. I recommend it sometime if you have a racket you don’t mind destroying and a croquet ball

The function of the wheel in roulette is to generate random numbers. You can replace it with another method of generating random numbers and as long as the distribution is identical, it doesn’t make any difference in how the game is played. You can’t make the same substitution with a tennis ball.

Yeah I am sure if I go up to the hordes at my local Indian casino and ask them what the function of the wheel is, they will say “to provide random numbers, se it is right here in the rules”.

In fact, the numbers on the wheel are anything but random. In case you can find a drawing, they are probably exactly the same on every wheel (within tolerance).

If we are going to be epistemological about it, the device consisting of the wheel and the ball are meant to select a number randomly for the purposes of enabling betting.

Yup. In fact, once you introduce that rule you don’t need any others.

Then, given that the rule is already there, how do you reconcile your view that the rules are not and can not be complete and consistent?

You’re fine to limit the discussion to “Are there any contradictory rules in baseball?” But that’s rather more limited in scope than the OP.

It is your opinion that it is fine. But I am far far FAR from being persuaded even though I am giving you lots of opportunity. Just on a hunch, did your Masters in computer science (or other education) cover topology at all?

It cannot.

That contradicts what you just said, that if you have a “let the ump decide” rule, you could close the rule set.

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

So the experience of flying a training simulator is *identical *to the experience of flying a real plane? Not pretty close, but identical? Every possible failure mode of a modern jetliner is coded into simulators? Even failure modes that haven’t happened yet?

I disagree that at EVERY level of cognitive experience, playing chess on and/or against a computer is identical to playing chess on a board.

You know it too, if you feel otherwise you are being dishonest to yourself academically.

You can’t pick and choose arbitrarily where you are going to put dividing lines in a debate. I am going to stop taking you seriously if you keep it up

[Chronos]

I am not sure what you mean when you say things can happen in a real game that can not happen in a simulation? Like what? Feeling wind? If that is important, I can build air control into a simulation. The haptic experience of sliding into second base and getting a strawberry? I could do that in principle. Maybe not today, but no reason it can’t be developed. The feel of the crack of the bat? the snap of a crisp throw in a glove? All possible given sufficient research.

OK, how about this? In a real baseball game, it’s possible for the false vacuum of spacetime to shift phase into a naked singularity right on top of home plate. I’ll bet you can’t simulate that.

I disagree that at EVERY level of cognitive experience, playing chess on and/or against a computer is identical to playing chess on a board.

It is not identical at every level of cognitive experience. It is, however, identical in every manner which can possibly influence the outcome of the game.

[Telemark]

@not_alice

Sure, the sanctioning body could say that in the rules if they want to, but apparently they don’t. they specifically (according to your quote) mention “squares”. Ask any 5 year old what a square is, if it got lost during your education in abstraction

There’s nothing in the rules that I can see that says the squares or the board have to be physical objects. The point is this has no impact on the game, rules or not. The chess board can be abstracted away, as can the roulette wheel, as their purpose can be mapped completed by a few simple rules. The board merely is a framework for the moves - the roulette wheel is simply a random number generator. Any variation from random number generation is an aberration that violates the spirit of the game.

The same cannot be said for a baseball, bat, field, weather conditions, etc. There are too many variables and there are too many subjective calls (How hard does it have to rain until the game can be called? How muddy can the field get before it’s unsafe?)

I was just reading the rules on the Pitcher and there are lots of places where the Ump has to make a subjective decision – for example do you call a delay of game if a pitcher makes repeated but lackluster throws to first base? Is it wasting time or are they real attempts to catch the runner? It’s up to the Ump to make the call based on his experience and observing the play. Show me how you can write a rule to take this out of the Ump’s judgment?

Here’s the current rule:

The pitcher shall not
c) Intentionally delay the game by throwing the ball to players other then the catcher, when the batter is in position, except in an attempt to retire a runner.

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Rules are constraints, correct? They’re limitations on player action.

Not at all. The rules exist independent of whether or not anyone ever plays. The rules are the game.

You are a game designer. Would you say a game you design does not exist at all until many months or more, and with the additional hard work of technical and marketing and sales people, someone actually plays it in its final form?

I’d be surprised if you said the game doesn’t exist from the time you scribble down the rules, even if the rules undergo evolution during development.

Are you willing to admit that the codified rules of baseball are only *approximations *of the actual constraints that apply on the ballfield?

No. If anything, it is the other way around. The field is an instantiation of the rules.

The rules assume that things like balls, bases, bats, etc. have certain fixed properties. But because the actual equipment are real things, not abstractions, they may have properties that differ in subtle but significant ways from the idealized versions that exist in the rules.

And even if this were true, you would be be able to point to examples, right? And then I wouldn’t be able to simply extend the rules to cover it, without changing the nature of the game one iota, right? Didn’t we already do that back and forth?

It has nothing to do with the OP. You might as well be arguing that a rabbit that hops half-way to a wall repeatedly will never get there, so there is no sense in traveling towards a target at all.

But please, do tell. Re-read the OP, and please let me know, in all the glory and detail you can muster, your complete position on what I asked.

Someone, maybe not you, I don’t recall, suggested that a proof was available, but it never showed up, other than you and others offering counter-examples that are not persuasive.

I think that you have a more detailed and complete chain of logic in mind, and I think you are capable of providing it all in one chunk.

So in the interest of keeping this thread focused, can you provide your entire train of thought, and try to include any possible objections that by now you know I will raise, and see if it holds up?

Then, let’s go from there instead of playing response ping-pong as we are now.

[not_alice]

@Chronos

OK, how about this? In a real baseball game, it’s possible for the false vacuum of spacetime to shift phase into a naked singularity right on top of home plate. I’ll bet you can’t simulate that.

I will ignore that as not being a constructive comment.

It is not identical at every level of cognitive experience. It is, however, identical in every manner which can possibly influence the outcome of the game.

Not true. I already gave counter examples. Humans being biological creatures, err in ways computers don’t. Playing against a computer is not the same as playing against a human cognitively. And yes, maybe a person gets nervous or tired or has to pee and that affects how well they can execute their game. A computer simply does not do that. It affects the game, enough for the purposes of this discussion to counter that it is NOT the same thing.

Close enough for government work maybe, but not the same. You get that, right?

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

I disagree that at EVERY level of cognitive experience, playing chess on and/or against a computer is identical to playing chess on a board.

Of course it doesn’t. But it does allow a full exploration of the potential state-space of the game.

Do modern training simulators allow a complete exploration of the potential state-space of a jetliner? Will they recreate every meaningful interaction that a pilot can have with an actual plane?

Obviously there is more to the experience of playing a game than just interacting within a system of rules. Part of the fun of playing baseball is running around in the fresh air. But the rules are silent on those aspects of the game. They’re only concerned with the gameplay, not the entire experience.

When I’m talking about meaningful interactions, I’m talking about gameplay interactions – actions that generate permutations of the play space. Obviously a training simulator doesn’t need to recreate the incidental elements of being a pilot. It doesn’t need to include a flight attendent who delivers meals to the cockpit, for example. But it does need to capture all the meanful interactions that the pilot can have with the plane. Can the pilot explore the FULL performance envelope in exactly the same way as he can in a real plane?

However well-coded the simulator is, it will always fall short. There will always be possible real-world behaviors that are unanticipated by the software engineers who create the simulation. The state-space of the simulation will not match the state-space of reality.

The same cannot be said of a chess program. It provides exactly the same meaningful set of interactions as a game of chess on an actual board. (Assuming you’re playing against another human, of course.)

[not_alice]

@Telemark

There’s nothing in the rules that I can see that says the squares or the board have to be physical objects. The point is this has no impact on the game, rules or not.

OK, I suppose the rules of chess pre-date computers. since the advent of computers (and I admit chess was an early topic for programming) has the definition of “square” come to include a “data structure of some sort useful for abstracting chess”. I haven’t looked at any kids books that teach shapes, geometry, or chess to check, so maybe it did.

But it does imact the game, see my post immediately above.

the roulette wheel is simply a random number generator. Any variation from random number generation is an aberration that violates the spirit of the game.

Not true. You can not know the true distribution of the wheel and the ball either together or in combination. You might model it as a uniform distribution, but you can’t really know, nor can you know that all roulette wheels are identical.

By making those assumptions, you are taking the rules into your own hands and arbitrarily modifying them for the purposes of abstraction.

You don’t have to like this, but it is true.

The same cannot be said for a baseball, bat, field, weather conditions, etc. There are too many variables and there are too many subjective calls (How hard does it have to rain until the game can be called? How muddy can the field get before it’s unsafe?)

Those sorts of things might be candidates for studying. Remember, I asked if such a study has been done, that’s all.

I was just reading the rules on the Pitcher and there are lots of places where the Ump has to make a subjective decision – for example do you call a delay of game if a pitcher makes repeated but lackluster throws to first base? Is it wasting time or are they real attempts to catch the runner? It’s up to the Ump to make the call based on his experience and observing the play. Show me how you can write a rule to take this out of the Ump’s judgment?

Why would you have to take it out of the ump’s judgment? The ump is part of the game, part of the equipment or field if you will.

No one is saying there can’t be judgment calls, I just wonder if all situations are subject to a ruling at all, and if so, only one ruling at a time, based on the circumstance. I suspect the answer is no.

In the case of a muddy unsafe field, it can be a judgment call, but in the context of the game it is either yes or not at a certain time, not both. I am fine having a judgment of the ump define the dividing line each rainy day if that is how it is in the rules already, because the ump is already part of the game by the rules, and he is assigned that role (among others).

A general list of places the ump needs to apply judgment is of no interest to me. Can you come up with a case where there is a judgment call where, in the game’s context, it is not either-or, but could be both simultaneously? Those are the sorts of cases I am interested in.

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

Not at all. The rules exist independent of whether or not anyone ever plays. The rules are the game.

You are a game designer. Would you say a game you design does not exist at all until many months or more, and with the additional hard work of technical and marketing and sales people, someone actually plays it in its final form?

I’d be surprised if you said the game doesn’t exist from the time you scribble down the rules, even if the rules undergo evolution during development.

Be surprised then. I’d say exactly that.

A game exists in the playing. It is a process, not a thing. The rules are a framework that allow the game to come into being, but they are not the game itself.

Is a blueprint a building? Is a musical score a concert?

No. If anything, it is the other way around. The field is an instantiation of the rules.

Which determines how players actually play? The rules governing the field, or the field itself?

And even if this were true, you would be be able to point to examples, right?

Let’s return to my original one. What defines a “ball”?

If a fielder catches a hit before it touches the ground the batter is out. But this rule assumes that the “ball” is a ideal entity that has a clear distinction between “caught” and “not caught”. But real balls may have properties that make this clear distinction fuzzy.

For example, say some of the stitching comes loose when the ball is hit. A foot of of thread is trailing behind it as it flies. What happens if the thread touches the ground before the ball arrives in the fielders mitt? Is that an out? What if the fielder snags the thread with his glove first but the ball hits ground afterwards? What if the ball distintegrates more completely? What if the fielder catches the cover of the ball, but the insides hit the ground afterwards? What if the ball comes apart in ways where the parts are roughly equal in size? If you say “Well, any play where the ball come apart is invalid”, what defines “comes apart”? Is a homerun disallowed because a stitch came unravelled? If a ball comes apart, how much of it needs to be touched to a runner to constitute a tag? Can multiple runners be tagged with different parts of the same ball? If the runner on first is tagged with the cover, and the runner on second is tagged with the insides, which one is out?

I could go on and on. The rules assume that baseballs have certain ideal properties. They break down when the real world behavior of the ball deviates from the ideal. That’s when you resort to the uber rule “Who knows? The ump decides.”

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Of course it doesn’t.

OK fair enough, but that is the level of burden you are applying on me while excepting yourself. I hope you see that now.

But it does allow a full exploration of the potential state-space of the game.

It is a different type of game, in that the state-space is discrete and (I am not a chess expert, I don;'t know if at the end you could have queens roaming around at will without stalemate) for all intents and purposes finite if large. Go is even more so.

But baseball is a combination of discrete (each pitch is a ball or a strike or in play e.g.) and continuous (as you and others have pointed out). It is fundamentally different from chess, and hence represents a potnetially new area for state-space exploration.

Why are you satisfied that folks ahead of you have studied and continued to study the state space of chess, but dismiss the study of another game played around the world?

Obviously there is more to the experience of playing a game than just interacting within a system of rules. Part of the fun of playing baseball is running around in the fresh air. But the rules are silent on those aspects of the game. They’re only concerned with the gameplay, not the entire experience.

Right, and if you re-read the OP (there are two links on this very page to it!) yo will see I asked about the rules only. All the rest is bordering on hijacks IMHO.

When I’m talking about meaningful interactions, I’m talking about gameplay interactions – actions that generate permutations of the play space. Obviously a training simulator doesn’t need to recreate the incidental elements of being a pilot. It doesn’t need to include a flight attendent who delivers meals to the cockpit, for example. But it does need to capture all the meanful interactions that the pilot can have with the plane. Can the pilot explore the FULL performance envelope in exactly the same way as he can in a real plane?

That is all well and good. But too far from the OP - if you have an OP yourself to discuss, can you start a new thread. PM me if you want me to take a look at it.

However well-coded the simulator is, it will always fall short. There will always be possible real-world behaviors that are unanticipated by the software engineers who create the simulation. The state-space of the simulation will not match the state-space of reality.

Not my experience with satellites. Do we launch satellites with bugs? Well, we sure did when I was in that field. But your tax dollars paid for more backup than that, we could upload new software from the ground using teams of experts, we could repair some via shuttle, we could park some until circumstances improved, and we could simply give up and let its orbit decay with some control or none at all. In which case other tracking systems exist to make sure the effect on other items in orbit was minimized.

I know, I know, now you are going to argue that if a satellite burns up in orbit (none I worked on ever did, btw) that because we can’t tracked where every molecule or fragment will end up back on earth, it is not worth studying the physics of orbits at all, just like because we can’t measure the field to the angstrom level to see if the field is “level” as specified in the rules, that we can’t analyze the game space of baseball.

The same cannot be said of a chess program. It provides exactly the same meaningful set of interactions as a game of chess on an actual board. (Assuming you’re playing against another human, of course.)

Ah well that was a small retreat on your part.

I still would maintain that the kinematic and sensual experience of moving the pieces, reaching for the clock is not something you can recreate on a computer any more or any less than you can in a baseball game.

If all your computer is doing is displaying the board and the locations and two players use eh keyboard or some input device to indicate which pieces to move, and the display updates, I will allow that that is within the rules of displaying “squares”. But I don’t see how it allows for any meaningful exploration of the state-space if the computer is neither assisting a player nor acting as one, or doing both.

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

Right, and if you re-read the OP (there are two links on this very page to it!) yo will see I asked about the rules only. All the rest is bordering on hijacks IMHO.

Hijacks, you’ve introduced! All I’ve ever been talking about are rules and gameplay. You’re the one who now wants to discuss the entire experience, not just the rule-based interactions. You’re the one who’s brought in other games like chess and roulette and track and field. You’re the one who brought up satellites and flight simulators. Jeez, if you just want to talk about the rules of baseball, why do you keep changing the subject?

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Be surprised then. I’d say exactly that.

Hmmm.

So if your company builds it, and no one wants to distribute it, or no one buys it, then it is not a game?

Does it cease being a game after the last time someone plays it? If so, does it become a game again if someone picks t up on a rainy day and plays it again?

Does it not become a game until the first paying customer plays it? sort of like a christening?

What is it if not a game at earlier stage of creation, development, testing, distribution and marketing?

When I have gone to IDC, I can’t recall anyone ever referring to a product in development, regardless of the stage, as anything other than a game. Is your experience different?

Is a blueprint a building? Is a musical score a concert?

Of course not. But which of the trillions of possible sudoku games are “sudoku”? All of them? some of them? Or maybe just the rules?

Which game ever played of baseball is “baseball”? All of them? Some of them?

Are we to infer the rules from studying the body of historical games? Or do the games arise from the rules?

Which determines how players actually play? The rules governing the field, or the field itself?

Let’s return to my original one. What defines a “ball”?

Asked and answered. Long ago. don’t have time to repeat your list of cases here. If yo uwant my answer, reread the thread.

If you are actually adding a cae that you think is covered by the rules to support my concernt that the rules are incomplete or inconsistent, then please frame it that way.

If so, and you can’t conceive of a way to reconcile that without changing the game but only by clarifying the rules, then I would posit you must be designing very simple games indeed.

The rules assume that baseballs have certain ideal properties.

You keep saying that yet you never get around to pointing to such rules, nor how they prevent the game from being played within the framework of the rest of the rules. I don’t get your point, within the OP. Really, wtf are you getting at by repeating this over and over?

They break down when the real world behavior of the ball deviates from the ideal. That’s when you resort to the uber rule “Who knows? The ump decides.”

I looked in the index, I didn’t see any reference to “uber rules”. The umps are part of the game, as I said earlier, allowing them judgment is well within the rules, and entirely consistent with them.

I am starting to think you really are not a baseball fan as you said if you don’t know that!

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Hijacks, you’ve introduced! All I’ve ever been talking about are rules and gameplay.

yes in general, without ever making a convincing case that your thoughts apply to baseball at all. Not to me anyway, and I am the OP.

If you want to talk about the epistemology of games (and until your first post, all the posts were about baseball, I just looked), then I repsectfully request you take it to another thread.

If you want to answer the OP in whatever level of detail you have to offer, this is the best place for it.

You’re the one who now wants to discuss the entire experience, not just the rule-based interactions. You’re the one who’s brought in other games like chess and roulette and track and field. You’re the one who brought up satellites and flight simulators. Jeez, if you just want to talk about the rules of baseball, why do you keep changing the subject?

because you do.

now I am asking that you don’t.

I only care about the actual rules of baseball in this thread. Hamster King, I request that you stay on topic, and that if you are referring to any actual rules of baseball, you provide us with the actual citation of the rules.

Otherwise, after 3 pages now, I am actually MORE convinced that the rules are subject to analysis as posited in the OP than I was when I wrote it. Believe it or not, you are in large part responsible for that, because I have come to think that you are capable of constructing a persuasive argument for the alternative, but despite your level of activity here, you have not yet done so.

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

When I have gone to IDC, I can’t recall anyone ever referring to a product in development, regardless of the stage, as anything other than a game.

There’s a useful distinction between the rules governing the experience and the experience itself. When you said “the rules are the game”, it sounds like you’re overlooking that distinction. If you don’t like using the word “game” to describe the rules-driven activity that the player is carrying out, I’ll be happy to use whatever terminology you prefer.

It’s also useful to distinguish between rules-driven and incidental experiences. Catching a fly ball and feeling the cool breeze in your hair are both part of the experience of playing baseball, but only one is subject to and shaped by the rules.

Of course not. But which of the trillions of possible sudoku games are “sudoku”? All of them? some of them? Or maybe just the rules?

Which game ever played of baseball is “baseball”? All of them? Some of them?

Are we to infer the rules from studying the body of historical games? Or do the games arise from the rules?

Interesting questions, but I fear answering them would get me accused of hijacking the thread.

Asked and answered. Long ago. don’t have time to repeat your list of cases here. If yo uwant my answer, reread the thread.

Actually, no, not answered.

You defined that the minimal condition for a ball to be unusable is “Not sufficient to be used for the next pitch”. What constitutes “sufficient”? It’s basically just another way of saying “Who knows? The ump decides.”

And that says nothing about the problem of how the outcome of a play is determined when the ball is in multiple “places” simultaneously. The rules say that if a ball comes partially apart during a play, the play counts. How does the play “count” when the indeterminate location of the ball makes a definitive call one way or another impossible?

I looked in the index, I didn’t see any reference to “uber rules”. The umps are part of the game, as I said earlier, allowing them judgment is well within the rules, and entirely consistent with them.

It’s a catch-all rule. It basically says, “If there’s anything we haven’t thought of, the umps have the final say”.

Allow me to point out that your position on how the umpires figure into the rule set has changed over the course of the thread. You said this on page one:

Giving the second case the benefit of the doubt, a game can hang in the balance, and who gets to decide? The ump? Which ump? Is there a rule that specifies that all matters not otherwise covered in the rulebooks are subject to the judgment of the umps, and the ump’s ruling is final? That is pretty arbitrary and hardly necessary, if only an effort is made, over the course of 130 years or so of major league baseball to make sure the rules are both complete and consistent. There is a rules committee after all.

It seems like you started out with the position that the rules should be able to be complete and consistent without having to resort to the umpires making occasional arbitrary decisions. You have since modified your position.

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

If you want to talk about the epistemology of games (and until your first post, all the posts were about baseball, I just looked), then I repsectfully request you take it to another thread.

My first post was pointing out that your analogy with chess was flawed. If you don’t want people to talk about chess, don’t bring up chess!:rolleyes:

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

My first post was pointing out that your analogy with chess was flawed. If you don’t want people to talk about chess, don’t bring up chess!:rolleyes:

If you think a thread is about any particular word that happens to pass through your vision field, well…

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

If you think a thread is about any particular word that happens to pass through your vision field, well…

What are you talking about? If you say “X is like Y” and I say “No, X is not like Y for these reasons” that’s not randomly leaping on a word for no reason.

I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

There’s a useful distinction between the rules governing the experience and the experience itself. When you said “the rules are the game”, it sounds like you’re overlooking that distinction.

There is no such distinction - if no ever played another game of baseball anywhere on earth form today forever more, the game itself still exists because the rules still exist.

If you don’t like using the word “game” to describe the rules-driven activity that the player is carrying out, I’ll be happy to use whatever terminology you prefer.

You can use “game” I refer to an individual “game of baseball”. No problem there.

But “the game of baseball” refers to the rules.

It’s also useful to distinguish between rules-driven and incidental experiences. Catching a fly ball and feeling the cool breeze in your hair are both part of the experience of playing baseball, but only one is subject to and shaped by the rules.

Interesting questions, but I fear answering them would get me accused of hijacking the thread.

Feel free to use the “new thread button” at any time

Actually, no, not answered.

Answered but apparently not understood. I can live with that.

You defined that the minimal condition for a ball to be unusable is “Not sufficient to be used for the next pitch”. What constitutes “sufficient”? It’s basically just another way of saying “Who knows? The ump decides.”

Not a way of saying “who knows”, a way of testing to see if you might ever refer to an actual rule of baseball at some point in your rumination on their details. I have asked explicitly an simplicitly several times, I have yet to see a cite from you although others have done so just fine.

In case you can’t find them, try googling “mlb baseball rules”.

And that says nothing about the problem of how the outcome of a play is determined when the ball is in multiple “places” simultaneously. The rules say that if a ball comes partially apart during a play, the play counts. How does the play “count” when the indeterminate location of the ball makes a definitive call one way or another impossible?

When you can quote me the rule, and show such a case that that is not covered by the rules, and make a good case of it, then that will be interesting.

Because it will be on point to the OP.

Until then, you are speculating and so there is no need to respond up or down. the means to cite your case are available to you, that you don’t use them, repeatedly, weakens your case considerably.

It’s a catch-all rule. It basically says, “If there’s anything we haven’t thought of, the umps have the final say”.

Allow me to point out that your position on how the umpires figure into the rule set has changed over the course of the thread. You said this on page one: It seems like you started out with the position that the rules should be able to be complete and consistent without having to resort to the umpires making occasional arbitrary decisions. You have since modified your position.

Right - when confronted with actual thinking about a situation, in preparation for an analysis, when one comes for help and guidance, and gets it, and having reviewed a substantial portion of the rules in the meantime, one reconsiders the plan moving forward.

Well I do.

You OTOH seem to be ready to repeat yourself endlessly without ever citing actual rules, you know? But at the same time you are apparently of the position that continuous games, including baseball, can not be analyzed, as though they they have some sort of magical force field around them or something. Pshh to that!

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

What are you talking about? If you say “X is like Y” and I say “No, X is not like Y for these reasons” that’s not randomly leaping on a word for no reason.

I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.

And I you.

But you are the one who is prepared to take a random post or word out of context and make the thread about that.

If you are not comfortable discussing the rules of baseball, that is fine.

We may have an interesting discussion on the rest of it on another thread, you are welcome to start it if anything here strikes you as worth pursuing.

But can you please focus on the OP, in particular the rules of baseball, and not compare them to this or that, in this thread?

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

When you can quote me the rule, and show such a case that that is not covered by the rules, and make a good case of it, then that will be interesting.

Look at rule 6.0.5 defining what constitutes a legally caught ball. How do you apply that rule when the ball has come apart in such a way that it is not clearly “in the catcher’s glove” or not? Do all parts of the ball have to be in the glove? The center of mass? The majority? Some?