[Kensington]

DL... I would rule the ground was an interference if the shooter did not shoot at such a bird.

Here we go again...

On the old forum, Heiple proposed just that. It made sense to me but offended the sensibilities of others.

Perhaps we'll hear the arguments again.

Kensington

 

[Kensington]

Kensington,

You will get no argument out of me.

DLM

Or from me. Just looked as if a storm was brewing...

Since there seems to be more and different posters here than at the old site, it would be (IMHO) an interesting topic.

Kensington

 

[Kensington]

The reason the "ground" debate doesn't have good legs is that only doubles at station six would usually bring that rule change into effect.

That's true Bill but no reason to leave any ambiguity about how it should be scored.

The law of averages would make a grounded high six doubles a rare event except in a tornado.

Gotta disagree with you there. When there's a strong wind blowing from behind the high house and it gusts at the right time, that high bird can be driven into the ground before the "out of bounds". I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen to others.

Kensington

 

[Kensington]

This small percentage that would fall within the "new rule" is the reason why the rule change has weak legs. I never said it would be a bad rule, just that it is unlikely to get a life.

Well, that's right. But, I wonder how many "interference" calls have been made since the cell phone issue was added (by recess appointment) to the rules.

Kensington