Rule 5 draft
DMZ · November 19, 2004 at 4:04 pm · Filed Under Mariners
Anytime you see it as “Rule V” you can safely assume the author doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s in the books as “Rule 5”. I have no idea why this misconception persists. I can tell you that there are writers out there that have their editors change the correct designation to the incorrect one.
Comments
35 Responses to “Rule 5 draft”
I used to correct this whenever I saw it.
I stopped.
Never give up! Never surrender!
What happens when people stop being lazy and write “Rule Five” draft?
Or get even more lazy and start calling it the “RV” draft…
Hey they could be both wrong and not know how to do roman numerals and call it the Rule IIIII Draft
I like to refer to it as “The Draft that left Lou Piniella with one fewer bench option for the entire season”
You mean: “The Draft that left Lou Piniella with one fewer bench option for the entire season on his already useless bench” ?
What did Lou always call Ugueto, ‘The Rule V Kid?’
You mean, the ‘Rule 5 Kid’ ?!??!
Was that intentional?
MAN i miss Sweet Lou.
I don’t. I liked Lou, heck, I loved Lou, but he is pretty overrated by Seattle fans.
“You mean, the ‘Rule 5 Kid’ ?!??!
Was that intentional?”
Mebbe. Yes.
David…
whaaa?!
Surely you don’t mean Lou is…overrated? 🙁
Actually, “Rule Five” (spelled out) is Associated Press style. News organizations choose style conventions themselves. This is sometimes in concordance with how it appears in places like the rulebook, sometimes not.
Lou. Is. Overrated. There.
OT, but I am curious. Is Masao Kida still on the team? He is not listed on the 40 man roster, but I don’t recall ever hearing about him filing for FA, being outrighted, or anything!
No, it isn’t. AP style first dictates no roman numerals (“Use Arabic forms unless roman numerals are specifically required”)
Then you’ll see that in the examples, when citing a source that’s numbered like a legal reference or a play, you’re to use the specific numbering. Examples are in the “Some punctuation and usage examples” section.
In any event, since the draft is Rule 5, while I might not get agitated over “Rule Five” (though the capitalization implies it’s a direct citation, which it would not be), the Rule V is almost a deliberate error.
Remember Lou’s original Rule 5 kid … Fernando Vina? Lou cut him loose about two months into the 1993 season.
Yes, AP style says no roman numerals. It also says to spell out numbers under 10 in arabic script (except in headlines).
In any case, publications and news services make their own determinations for how to address usage. It doesn’t matter a whit how the major league rulebook refers to it. To use another example, journalists might cite the federal code, but would publish where to find things in the CFR differently than a bureaucrat would.
From some cursory searches, certain publications use “Rule Five” and others use “Rule 5,” so you don’t really need to worry about roman numeral creep.
#15…go to a mirror and repeat the word hubris…did you even play in little league?
Wow……It’s really sad that that this thread was even started.
Re #15: terry, do you have to go around insulting people?
Oops–that was in response to #20, obviously . . .
Um, if everyone knows what someone MEANS when they say “Rule V” (ie, you know they mean Rule 5) then is it really all that great a harm if people use the “Rule V” wording?
It’s kind of like calling a batted ball that bounces (fair) on the field of play and then over the outfield fence a “ground rule double”. Well, no, it’s not really a “ground rule”- it’s an automatic double in every park in MLB.
“Ground rules” are stuff like “A batted ball hitting a roof truss in fair territory shall be judged fair or foul in relation to where it lands or is touched by a fielder. If caught by a fielder, the batter is out and base runners advance at their own risk.” (That’s from Safeco Field.)
But everyone still says “ground rule double” when someone bounces one over the fence, and everyone knows what an announcer, or anyone really, means, so… is it really a harmful thing?
Or is it just something that people get to bitch about in their blogs, because blogs are all about bitching about whatever nitpicky little thing the author feels like, even if it’s only to insult someone else? 🙂
Paul
Enumclaw
Sure you do. It’s intellectual laziness. If the Seattle Times runs an article that has team salaries all wrong, but we know what they mean, shouldn’t we care? It’s about respect for their work, and their audience.
Also, Jeff — it says use the word instead of the number in the sense that you say the team has four players on the DL, rather than 4. Looking at the examples, it clearly wants the writing to match the citation in these cases.
Is it a problem?
-
JMB on
November 20th, 2004 1:56 pm
-
Contrarian on
November 20th, 2004 5:51 pm
-
DMZ on
November 21st, 2004 12:30 am
-
**No Pepper** on
November 21st, 2004 6:31 pm
-
John on
November 21st, 2004 7:01 pm
-
John on
November 22nd, 2004 1:37 am
-
LilLeaguer on
November 22nd, 2004 1:28 pm
-
J. Cross on
November 22nd, 2004 5:07 pm
-
LilLeaguer on
November 22nd, 2004 6:06 pm
Pasedena Star-News, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, TSN so you know our Canadian friends have this problem, too. Jason Lake on November 20th, 2004 2:35 am
AP uses “Rule 5”, but occasionally an editor will screw up and use “Rule V” or “Rule Five.” I believe hockey free-agent classifications are in Roman numerals.
Jason Lake
Covers
Hey Paul (#24),
Not *everybody* says “ground rule double.” The fact that he always says “automatic double” is one of the reasons I like Jon Miller so much.
jason
So the Washington Times’ prevailing political viewpoint doesn’t jibe with yours, and it’s thus a “rag.” It certainly doesn’t have the cachet of, say, the Pasadena Star.
Um, no, it’s really a rag. For a while, I’d look at Washington Times cites seriously when I was doing research, but their articles were almost always terrible. The only thing I’ve come across there worth reading has been some of their Expos/MLB coverage.
With winter baseball talk in full swing, a friendly reminder from DMZ at the U.S.S. Mariner:Anytime you see it as “Rule V†you can safely assume the author doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s in the books as “Rule…
Re: # 18 – “Cutting VINA loose”? IIRC, the Ms thought that Vina was a keeper–despite his adventurous base-running habits. But they thought he could use more seasoning, so they wanted to farm him out. First, according to the Rule 5 rules, they had to offer him back to the NY Mets. The Mets had just had an injury to a middle infielder, so they took Fernando back.
BTW, while on the subject of the Rule 5 Draft, here’re Jim Callis’s (BA) thoughts on that “free up a spot on the 40-man roster” trade that the Mariners just made:
http://tinyurl.com/6o6t5
Re: # 16: “OT, but I am curious. Is Masao Kida still on the team? He is not listed on the 40 man roster
KIDA is listed on the Mariner official 40-man roster, http://tinyurl.com/xje1
(It’s the Big Board where he’s not listed.)
On “ground rule double” discussion.
Rules 7.05(f) and 6.09(e) are almost redundant and agree in not calling this type of ball a double in any way. It probably should be called a two-base award.
Since the rules refer to park conditions (e.g. vines on the fence), I’m not sure that “automatic” is all that preferrable to “ground-rule.”
In keeping with the original topic, note that I used the correct punctuation of the MLB rules.
Are you telling me that Rule Seven Point Zero Five Ef and Rule VI-IX-V say basically the same thing?
MLB Rules are just that way
Section 6 says that the batter and the runners are awarded two bases in this case. Section 7 says the runners and the batter are awarded two bases in almost exactly the same case. (Rule 6.09(e) explicitly states that a ball that bounces over the fence in fair territory is covered.)
Neither rule states that the award is made from the runners’ positions at the time of pitch, though that is the accepted way to enforce them.
You can check out the rules at .
Recent Posts
Author Links
Local M's Coverage
M's Blogosphere
M's Official Sites
Resources
Twittah