|
CARTER;
OK, let's take it by the numbers. First let's correct your introductory statement that stated: "....where IMHO, you "went wrong" on this one." Trust me, I didn't go wrong, yesterday you wanted documentation, today you have found it so let's go from there.
You wrote:
1.) 7.10(b) says nothing about "touching out of order", per se: the rule says runner is out if he "FAILS TO TOUCH EACH BASE IN ORDER" before being appealed for the missed base. Thus, the viewpoint of those who want to use 7.10(b) as written (in most cases - see below), and don't understand your way of saying "use (d) at all bases, not just home".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first part is simple semantics. Your not guilty of touching bases out of order nor guilty of not touching bases in order if you have only touched one base, can't do that so let's drop that part. I'll handle the second part of that down further.
-------------------------
#2. HOWEVER, I found the "use 7.10(d) at all bases" ruling [never let it be said I do not admit where I have been mistaken :-))]! Reading the only reference I have to it [2004 BRD Section 10], I think I understand the point; BUT, let me suggest that you have taken the OFF INTERP. a bit too far: vis-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm pleased that you now understand that 7.10(d) has been extended and it has been extended all the way down to amateur baseball. Let's move on...
---------------------------
#3. See OFF INTERP 11-10 in the BRD: the point is that with the ball & runner both in the vicinity of the base AND THE RUNNER TRYING TO RETURN, don't allow the appeal while that playing action is going on~ the runner must be tagged [on his person]. This is where we are to "extend" 7.10(d) to all bases and poke him out [on the tagged base appeal] only if he is making no effort to return. See just above this text in BRD for citation to 7.10(b) - it is still applicable; and nowhere is there anything about needing to touch the NEXT base before he can be out on appeal for missing a previous base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
First off, I do not have The BRD, simply because I only do OBR and of course I accept all MLB Official interpretations.
Next I would like to correct some of the things that you have written in this section.
A. "THE RUNNER TRYING TO RETURN". Nick Bremigan, who wrote the rule, clarified that in an article in Referee, circa 1977, showing where the runner does not have to be returning in order to be tagged rather than appealed, the criteria used is the immediate area of the base. I realize most book rules use some form of returning, scrambling or whatever but it is not necessary for a tag and JEA explicitly agrees with that in one of his plays at the plate.
B. "(on a tagged base appeal)". When a runner stays in the vicinity of first (rounded), second or third a tagout is not a tag base appeal it is simply an off base out and if the base was a forced base the force would be removed. At first (running through) and at home it is a tag out appeal.
Yes, 7.10(b) is still applicable, I never said it wasn't, but it can only be used when the runner that failed to touch a base in passing has touched his advance base but why use it since (d) extrended accomplishes the same purpose. That is why C2 uses (d) in his ruling. Moving on.
------------------------------------------------
#4.) Reading further in this section of BRD, there seems to be some extra confusion about the possibility of a further appeal for an advantageous "4th out" on the already-retired runner. I suspect that this is a place where the "unwritten rules" as used in MLB are causing some unintended consequences of confusion and conflict between different rules and interpretations. 'Course to quote Papa Childress: "Admittedly, 'The Book' is not the best source for the current 'rules' of professional (MLB) play."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes there is confusion on the possibility of an advantageous 4th out appeal but the confusiion doesn't lie with MLB as to the best of my knowledge, they have never ruled on it.
On December fourth 2000, PBUC (Minor league baseball) who write their own rules, made an iterpretation that would allow an advantageous fourth out appeal after the runner was called out for an off base out. Mike Fitzpatrick, the honcho, notified C2 of that interp and we discussed it for a loooong time and decided not to use it as it as it patently contradicts OBR 7.10(b), whether read in conjunction with or without the Bremigan ruling as explained above. It also contradicts the Major League ruling for enforcing the OBR 7.10(d) criterion for a missed base at all other bases - also explained above. Further, it also apparently contradicts OBR 7.10 Comment, which clearly states that, after a third out play, an apparent fourth out appeal may only be made on ANOTHER runner.
And that's the way it is. Regards, G.
[Edited by Gee on Aug 10th, 2004 at 07:55 PM]
|