Jump to content



Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Photo
- - - - -

I've got a good one.


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 RichMSN

RichMSN
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Joined 12-March 11
  • LocationWisconsin


Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:26 PM


...
+1. I look at this way. If it had happened on ball 3, the game would be over. Why does ball 4 change that. If the winning run was forced in by the walk then I see it, but as it is I still say game over.


carolina,

By your logic, if the same pitch were a strike 3 the run would score even if the defense subsequently put the BR out before he touched 1B. I mean the R3 scored because of the wild pitch, not because the batter swung at it.

If it were Ball 3, the game would indeed be over. However, since it was Ball 4, the batter became a runner and the "play" isn't over until the BR touches 1B. If he fails to, he is properly called out and the run nullified per the 4.09(a) Exception.

JM


The difference, as you pointed out, was that the batter became a batter-runner on the pitch that was Ball 4. He has responsibilities, one of which includes not being put out before reaching first base. If he does, no runs can score.

Those that are saying that the run didn't score on the walk but "on a wild pitch" are using the same argument coaches use when saying first base isn't occupied on a third strike because the runner was stealing. Sounds good, but has no basis in the rules.


Register or Sign In to remove these ads

#42 carolinablue

carolinablue
  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined 10-August 08
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC


Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:11 PM

OK. I'll go with the veterans here. Very good discussion though and I learned something. Although I don't think I'm going to hang around too long after the run scores.GTHOOD. LOL

 Whether you think you can, or you think you can't-you're right. ~Henry Ford


#43 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:15 PM

... Although I don't think I'm going to hang around too long after the run scores.GTHOOD. LOL


carolina,

I don't think I'd argue THAT point! :rolleyes:

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#44 grayhawk

grayhawk

    Almost as good as I think I am

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,759 posts
  • Joined 28-August 10
  • LocationLaguna Niguel, CA


Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:19 PM

grayhawk,

The sitch in 4.09( b ) is, as stipulated, a bases loaded situation. However, it in NO WAY says that is the ONLY situation where the BR can be called out for failing to advance to his awarded base.

The 7.05(i) Comment I quoted says unequivocally that the runner is responsible for TOUCHING his awarded base, and makes no distinction in that responsibility between "missing" it and "never advancing" to it.

7.08(a) says unequivocally that a BR must advance to and touch 1B on a base on balls award in order to maintain his exemption from being liable to be called out. As does the remainder of 7.08 for other awards of 1B to the BR.

Both of the two most authoritative interpretation manuals concur that it is proper to call the BR out and nullify the run in this sitch.

You whole argument is based on the misinterpretation that says since the 4.09( b ) Penalty says you call the batter out when he fails to advance on a walk with bases loaded, you DON'T call him out when the base are NOT loaded and he fails to advance. It does not say that, and the logic of your inference is fallacious.

You call him out because he failed to advance, NOT because the bases are loaded. The "point" of the bases loaded, is that in this special case (only), the R1 and R2 are RELIEVED of THEIR responsibility to touch their "forced to" bases.

A BR is ALWAYS required to touch awarded 1B to maintain his exemption from liability to be called out.

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, however THIS...

If nothing else, I would think...


I agree with Grayhawk.


...would give you serious pause to reconsider your position.


...is some funny stuff!

JM


2014 Game Count:  High School: 55 | AAU: 0 | Pony: 0 | Little League: 2 | UCLA: 2 | Total: 59

2013 Game Count:  High School: 43 | USSSA: 7 | AAU: 30 | Pony: 11Little League: 17 | UCLA: 1Total: 109


#45 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:14 PM

#1 - The rules interpretations don't really make much sense to the OP. In the cases cited there is good reason to require the BR to touch first base. It is only by his touching of first base that R3 gets to come home. But in this case the run has already scored, during a time when BR was not liable to be put out. So the game would end before his requirement to touch first base would ever come into play. The example of the run scoring on strike 3 that JM gave makes no sense. In that situation BR is liable to be put out as soon as it's strike 3. But on ball 4 BR is not liable to be put out. I'm sure if you talked to the committee that wrote the rules book this is NOT the spirit or intent of this rule. Anyone watching a baseball game would not even consider that on ball 4 after the winning run scores, on a wild pitch, that a runner has to go touch first base.

#2 -This situation probably has as much a chance of turning out bad as an alien abducting the BR on his way to first base. I in no way would expect any team to think that they had to go touch first base. So if it is found to be that it is required then I most certainly would tell the BR, "Hey go touch first to make this official".

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67


#46 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:37 PM

grayhawk,

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one


Actually, the force "happens" as soon as the batter becomes a runner. And your interp seems directly contrary to...



Rule 7.04( b ) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance
past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the
third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third
base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would
score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do
was proceed and touch the next base.


JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#47 carolinablue

carolinablue
  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined 10-August 08
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC


Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:57 PM

A force is in effect as soon as the batter becomes a runner not by the Batter/Runner touching 1st. In a bases loaded walk situation as soon a ball four is delivered, all runners are forced and may advance without liability to be put out. The batter/Runner has a responsibilty to advance and touch 1B and if he doesn't can be called out.

My question is this, in a bases loaded situation and a walk, if the B/R heads immediately to the dug-out for some unknown reason and is called out for not advancing due the other runners loose thier right to advance without liability to be put out? I know it's not likely to happen that way but you never know.

 Whether you think you can, or you think you can't-you're right. ~Henry Ford


#48 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:03 PM

carolina,

It would seem that they do retain that right, however, no run can score on the play if the out on the BR is the 3rd out of the half inning.

If there were less than 2 outs, the run would score.

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#49 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:03 PM

Let's pretend this were a MLB game and this exact situation happened. The BR would back out of the box and emphatically signal for his R3 to come home. They would then all mob him at home plate, just like in the OP. The game is over. There is no reason for BR to advance to first. The game ends with two outs. That is what is logical and sensible. Calling him out when anyone who has ever played the game would assume there is no reason to go to first is wrong to the spirit and intent of the rules.

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67


#50 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:14 PM

Scott,

What umpire training have you had? Which of the interpretation manuals have you read. Which of the rule books (OBR, FED, NCAA) have you read? Which studies of the history and evolution of the rules have you read.

Or are you a self-taught, "common sense" umpire?

What qualifies you to determine "...what is logical and sensible..." or speak for "...what anyone who has ever played the game would assume..." or what the "..spirit and intent of the rules..." is?

How many HS Varsity games have you worked? Any in-season "conference" games?

What "would" happen in an MLB game is what always DOES happen - the BR would go touch 1B and the game would be over. You're making it seem like you've never even watched an MLB game with your hypothetical description of what "would" happen - utter nonsense.

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#51 grayhawk

grayhawk

    Almost as good as I think I am

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,759 posts
  • Joined 28-August 10
  • LocationLaguna Niguel, CA


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:21 PM

grayhawk,

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one


Actually, the force "happens" as soon as the batter becomes a runner. And your interp seems directly contrary to...



Rule 7.04( b ) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance
past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the
third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third
base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would
score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do
was proceed and touch the next base.


JM


Not contrary at all. Please reconcile your comment above with this:

6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

Seems like in a bases loaded walk situation, simply becoming a runner isn't enough. Technically, he has to touch first before the other runners are forced to advance. Notice in the case play you quoted, it didn't say the BR didn't touch first. It's not relevant to my point.

2014 Game Count:  High School: 55 | AAU: 0 | Pony: 0 | Little League: 2 | UCLA: 2 | Total: 59

2013 Game Count:  High School: 43 | USSSA: 7 | AAU: 30 | Pony: 11Little League: 17 | UCLA: 1Total: 109


#52 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:27 PM

Scott,

What umpire training have you had? Which of the interpretation manuals have you read. Which of the rule books (OBR, FED, NCAA) have you read? Which studies of the history and evolution of the rules have you read.

Or are you a self-taught, "common sense" umpire?

What qualifies you to determine "...what is logical and sensible..." or speak for "...what anyone who has ever played the game would assume..." or what the "..spirit and intent of the rules..." is?

How many HS Varsity games have you worked? Any in-season "conference" games?

What "would" happen in an MLB game is what always DOES happen - the BR would go touch 1B and the game would be over. You're making it seem like you've never even watched an MLB game with your hypothetical description of what "would" happen - utter nonsense.

JM


You've quoted the rules and cases and umpires not named Scott have disagreed with you. None of your cases are analogous to this case. I can't say that I've ever seen an MLB game where this situation has occurred. And if it did the BR likely would have gone to touch first after the cameras were off of him. But clearly in the game that the OP was doing no one thought the BR had to go touch first. In the few baseball fans that I've posed this to they have said that they would assume that 100 out of 100 MLB players would watch the winning run score and then celebrate with their teammates.

You've stated ALL the rules and cases that could pertain to this. None of them, in my opinion, clearly answers the question that was posed. So unless there is other verbiage that does do this then I would say it's how the umpire interprets it. At some point when the rules and cases don't specifically answer the question, common sense is what's left.

If you can give me a common sense reason why I should disallow the run in the exact case of the OP, then give it a whirl. You have not convinced me with the rules and cases that you've cited that the rules clearly support calling him out.

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67


#53 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:29 PM

The comment about touching first base before other runners are forced to advance is contrary to the definition of a Force Play:



A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base
by reason of the batter becoming a runner.


Of course, the force may be removed on a preceding runner if a following runner is retired during the course of the play.

However, in the 7.04 Comment I posted above, the initial "force" still entitles the runner to advance on the "forced" award, even though the preceding runner who forced him to advance was retired during the course of the play.

As often happens, the rule book contradicts itself.

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#54 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:34 PM

scott,

I can only infer that you have not had any umpire training, have never read any of the rule books or interpretation manuals, and have never umpired a HS Varsity baseball game. And that you've never taken a class in logic either.

The fact that you do not understand how the cites I've provided apply to the OP does not surprise me in the least.

The way that you think something ought to be or what you and a bunch of nameless fans ASSUME is NOT "common sense".

Edited to add...

Let's break it down to basics.



6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put
out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;


To anyone who thinks the run should score in the OP (i.e., R3 ONLY, 2 outs, wild pitch base on balls to the batter, BR fails to go to 1B), what do you think the bolded part of the rule means?

I believe it applies whether the bases are loaded or not and I believe that it means the batter is properly called out if he does not "advance to and touch first base". What else could it mean?

It clearly says his exemption from a liability to be put out is "dependent upon" his completing the award by advancing to and touching 1B. If he fails to complete the award, he loses the exemption.

So, if you accept that, 4.09(a) Exception 1 unequivocally states that no run can score on the play if the BR is called out for the third out of the half inning before touching 1B. Regardless of how the run scored.

I would also challenge any of you to find ANYTHING - a rule cite, an interpretation, a case play - that suggests the BR is relieved of the requirement to advance to 1B on a walk. Under ANY circumstances. I don't believe one exists.

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#55 carolinablue

carolinablue
  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined 10-August 08
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:56 PM

Scott, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and make the call. Rules are rules.

 Whether you think you can, or you think you can't-you're right. ~Henry Ford


#56 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:57 PM

scott,

I can only infer that you have not had any umpire training, have never read any of the rule books or interpretation manuals, and have never umpired a HS Varsity baseball game. And that you've never taken a class in logic either.

The fact that you do not understand how the cites I've provided apply to the OP does not surprise me in the least.

The way that you think something ought to be or what you and a bunch of nameless fans ASSUME is NOT "common sense".

JM


Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category. I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67


#57 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

Scott, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and make the call. Rules are rules.


I agree with this. If you look back at my previous post about a BR pretending to be R1 and tag at first to draw a throw away from R3 going home, when I was presented with a case that while not exactly the same was close, I concluded that interference could not be called. Even though I thought the play was bush league and should not be supported I admitted that the rules did support it. I have no problem when the rules support it, even if I don't think it makes sense. In this case I don't think that JM's citations support his interpretation of the OP. And neither does Grayhawk. I'm not insulting JM for disagreeing with me.

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67


#58 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 17 July 2012 - 07:24 PM

Scott,

Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category.


Another ridiculously wrong conclusion, unsupported by the premises. It is actually my impression, formed from reading their posts on this and other boards, that a number of those who disagree with me on this particular question - among them grayhawk, JaxRolo, Rich Ives, and carolinablue - are actually serious students of the rules and of umpiring.

While I may find their arguments flawed in this particular case, they at least put forward cogent arguments based in the text of actual rules, and do not rely on "common sense" or "what everyone would assume" to support their position.


I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".


Are you familiar with the term non sequitur ? This is a great example of one, and they are a regular characteristic of your posts.

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.


No, I am saying I suspect you have no formal training or rules knowledge (or meaningful experience) because I asked you and you didn't respond with any. Plus your posts show no evidence of rules knowledge, having attended qualified training, or meaningful experience that would give your unsupported "opinion" any standing or weight. Plus, I may have been busting your balls a bit. :wave:

As to the logic, res ipsa loquitur.

Anyway, the point isn't even whether I'm right or those who disagree with me are right. The point is to go through the rules and interpretations, and the logic of how they might apply to an unusual situation, so that we all strengthen our knowledge and understanding - and confidence in that knowledge - so that when something weird happens in one of our games, we're able to handle it calmly and with aplomb from a solid foundation of knowledge.

JM
"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#59 JaxRolo

JaxRolo

    Dream Crusher

  • Premium Members
  • 10,160 posts
  • Joined 24-January 10
  • LocationJacksonville, Fl
  • Your Association Name :River City Umpires and Ump Nation


Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:51 PM

I'm throwing this out there but keep in mind I'm tired don't know if I'm thinking straight :/

Could this be a time play?

The runner score on wild pitch then the third out is made after the score?

On edit:
Na! It don't make sense!

I guess if this was to happen to me I would allow the run and wait for a possible protest and let the higher ups decide!!! :(

I used to be a really good Baseball Player until my eyes started going bad. So I became an Umpire!

 

River City Umpires Association - Webmaster
Umps 4 Hire - Webmaster

Ump Nation Umpire

Roy Hobbs World Series
FHSAA Baseball Umpire
Babe Ruth Baseball and Softball Certified


#60 umpire_scott

umpire_scott
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined 25-June 12
  • Your Association Name :Missouri High School Athletic Association

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:01 PM

Scott,


Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category.


Another ridiculously wrong conclusion, unsupported by the premises. It is actually my impression, formed from reading their posts on this and other boards, that a number of those who disagree with me on this particular question - among them grayhawk, JaxRolo, Rich Ives, and carolinablue - are actually serious students of the rules and of umpiring.

While I may find their arguments flawed in this particular case, they at least put forward cogent arguments based in the text of actual rules, and do not rely on "common sense" or "what everyone would assume" to support their position.


I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".


Are you familiar with the term non sequitur ? This is a great example of one, and they are a regular characteristic of your posts.

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.


No, I am saying I suspect you have no formal training or rules knowledge (or meaningful experience) because I asked you and you didn't respond with any. Plus your posts show no evidence of rules knowledge, having attended qualified training, or meaningful experience that would give your unsupported "opinion" any standing or weight. Plus, I may have been busting your balls a bit. :wave:

As to the logic, res ipsa loquitur.

Anyway, the point isn't even whether I'm right or those who disagree with me are right. The point is to go through the rules and interpretations, and the logic of how they might apply to an unusual situation, so that we all strengthen our knowledge and understanding - and confidence in that knowledge - so that when something weird happens in one of our games, we're able to handle it calmly and with aplomb from a solid foundation of knowledge.

JM



I didn't respond because I didn't feel the need to try and justify myself to you. This is an umpires forum, not a job interview. Have I taken clinics yes. Have I umpired high school games? Yes. Do you know more than me about baseball rules? Absolutely.

But none of those things matter to this situation. You have already used your vast knowledge to quote the rules and cases. This is simply about me disagreeing that your rules and case citations properly address the situation at hand. I can see your point regarding the BR not being liable to be put out "unless he touches first base". But I contend that there is a counter-argument that there he is no longer required to touch first base because the game is over when the winning run scores. I can see both sides to this argument, and the case that you cited involved a situation where the runner from 3rd would only be coming home if the runner touched first.

Think about it this way. If on ball 3 the runner from 3rd scored, would BR have to continue his AB? By this token I see no logical reason why on ball 4 he could be put out and the run not score. It just doesn't make sense that the team would be penalized for that. With all this being said, I don't know for sure what the correct rule interpretation is. And I don't know that there is an answer. Interpreting baseball rules is sort of like interpreting the Constitution. There is not always a black and white answer. If you interpret that based on the rules you've read that he has to touch first base I can't really argue that you are wrong. There are rules that can be interpreted to say this.

But I could also argue that a runner that knows he's out and remains on the field of play in order to draw a throw falls under the definition of interference. Interference says that "an act physical or verbal by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or CONFUSES any fielder attempting to make a play". Clearly to me if a player that knows the ball has been caught rounds first and then breaks for second to draw a throw they are CONFUSING the defense with their physical actions. But the FED case book specifically allows this.

2014 Game Count:

 

Junior College - 2

High School - 9

Tournament - 56

 

Total - 67





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users