Gee,
You still have not answered my the main point, which is what is wrong with rule 7.10(b) "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when (b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he or a missed base is tagged."
Let's look at the rule. It first states that the ball must be in play, meaing that it cannot be dead, since there are no dead ball appeals. Fair enough.
Second, the rule states that the runner may be advancing or returning to a base. It mentions nothing about immediate area or how close or far a player can be to have an appeal be made.
The last part states, "he fails to touch each base in order before he or a missed base is tagged." This sentence states that the play is appealable if the runner does not touch each base in order. It makes no mention of touching an advance base to be considered having touched the bases in order. In fact, the last part of the sentence refers to a missed base. A definition of missed is "to fail to hit something" or "to fail to contact". So, obviously, if the runner fails to make contact with the base on the way by, it is a missed base.
This is what constitutes failing to touch each base in order, missing a base. That is why the rule states that a runner is out on appeal if he misses a base and it is contacted before he can touch it. Because obviously then, it wouldn't be a missed base.
Why if the 7.10(b) states what it does is there any reason to "extend" 7.10(d) to all bases? 7.10(d) does not even state anything about the "immediate area".
Again, it sounds like someone decided to create an interpretation of a rule when a rule already exists to deal with a runner missing a base and how it is appealed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee
Well we're at least making progress.
So you still disagree with my interpretation of 7.10(b) as written. Now that you understand that 7.10(d) was extended to all bases, the reason why should be a given.
They extended it because (b) says the runner has to touch his advance base before he can be appealed while (d) says he only has to leave the immediate area to be appealed simply because there is no advance base.
Bremigan didn't like that and MLB agreed so they extended (d) to all bases. If they were both the same, as you and Mr. K. seem to think, why in the world would they have gone to all the bother to make the change?
From what you wrote in the last post C2 and I seem to agree on the central issue which is that (d) was extended to all bases and with that noted I don't see anything else to be interpreted as (d) is right there in the book. As far as I'm concerned they can throw away (b). Think about it. G.
|