Clipping:Dissent regarding the revised Rule 10
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, June 29, 1867 |
|---|---|
| Text | Now what is the meaning of all this? If section 10, as originally published in the rules, is incorrect, why may not other sections be equally incorrect? We deny the right of any single individual to pass judgment on this matter. If the rules are incorrect, let a committee be appointed by the association to revise them. It is very strange that the errors was not discovered long ago instead of at this late day, when half the season is nearly over. What is to prevent other errors from being declared, where certain rules may be supposed to interfere with certain phases of the game? It is due to the clubs throughout the country that a committee should be appointed to examine into the facts in reference to this alleged misprint, and report accordingly. They have a right to know who it was that blundered, if blunder has been committed, and why the committee on rules permitted such an important error to be incorporated in the rules, and remain so incorporated until the present time. We cannot perceive how such an error could have been passed over by the committee, proof reader and all connected with the original publication. The thousands of ball players throughout the country require an explanation of this matter–a better explanation than has yet been given. |
| Source | New York Clipper |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />