Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
Thanks for the explanation of the underlying reasoning, Warren. I had never studied the exact wordings carefully to find the justifications, but instead relied on the BRD, which covers these situations in section 238 and, with an odd situation, section 241.
In fact, 85-238 gives an example of how, in NCAA, two following runners could be put out without cancelling the force on a preceding runner.
|
I have only the 2001 Edition of BRD, so I read from sections 229 and 232 on the same subject. The NCAA ruling in 8-5j Ex that the force is not removed for the purposes of a subsequent base running infraction does seem a bit incongruous.
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
It seems to me that NCAA's rule, which differs from those of OBR and Fed, leaves open a very strange possibility:
Score tied, bottom of the ninth. Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles hits a grounder to F3, who steps on 1B to retire Charles. F3 throws home too late to get Abel, who scores with the apparent winning run. But Baker misses 2B and then starts to celebrate. The defense successfully appeals Baker's miss of 2B. Because the force was on at 2B at the time of the pitch, Baker's out is a force out cancelling the winning run.
A strict reading of the rules would indicate that if Baker simply stopped between 1B and 2B, there could be no appeal at 2B (since he didn't actually miss the bag). But since he proceeded to 2B and missed it, he would be at risk of being called out on appeal. Of course, I may be missing some reason that this particular play can't happen.
|
It would seem that, by NCAA rules, R1 (Baker) should allow himself to be caught in a run down between 1st and 2nd, so ensuring that R3 (Abel) scores the winning run on a time play. Of course with the BR (Charles) out at 1st, R1 (Baker) could also either return to 1st or advance to 2nd to seal the winning run. I'm not a fan of rulings that can be manipulated to their advantage by either side in a manner contrary to the objectives of the game.
NCAA doesn't have a monopoly on such rulings. Consider the following play under OBR:
R1, R2. Bottom 9. Score tied. 2 outs. F1 attempts to pick off R1 at 1st but balks and throws wide of F3. The ball remains in play. R2 advances beyond 3rd and attempts to score on F3's throw home. R1 saunters toward 2nd.
R2 represents the winning run. R1 can ensure that R2 has nothing to lose by attempting to score, despite 8.05 AR1 - all he has to do is
fail to advance all the way to 2nd until he knows whether or not R2 will be safe at home. If R2 is out at home, R1 had not advanced at least one base on the play following the balk, so the play is discarded and R2 gets reinstated to 3rd while R1 gets 2nd. OBR 8.05 Penalty gives the offense 2 bites at the cherry. Despite the clear intent of OBR 8.05 Approved Ruling 1, R2 was NOT in jeopardy after he passed 3rd base thanks to his team mate's clear thinking.
Cheers