|
Actually, the point I was trying to make was as follows:
Fed rule:
---8-2-1 requires runner to advance to base
---8-2-1 penalty says umpire will call out if not done
---9-1-1a says no run if 3rd out by BR failing to reach 1st base
---9-1-1-e provides beneficial "last" out to defense
---all other Fed examples acknowledge that a missed 1st base when declared out negates run
---PBUC ruling says BR must advance to 1st even if 3rd out is made elsewhere on the play
---no contradictory ruling by Fed showing otherwise, therefore---------
Summation: BY RULE---call BR out and negate run. Look like a jerk on the field.
In reality, this is one not to call.
Now, Carl, I have seen you apply the fact that if a situation is addressed under one set of rules and a ruling is made, then that same ruling should apply to the other set of rules which has not yet ruled to address that specific situation. Is this not consistently applied logic? Is that not true? Would you not do it here? If not, is that only because you don't like the outcome of the ruling? Does your analogy logic apply only when YOU decide to use it? Will you use the logic consistently, or does the logic include YOUR GUESS as to what the Fed will or will not accept? Perhaps you just don't like admitting that sometimes rules are purposely overlooked and rightfully done so.
In closing , Carl, my earlier post complimented you in providing a real life, survivable answer to the initial question posed by JJ---rather than a black & white, live by the book answer. Sometimes our decisions on the field will not be according to the book but yet are in the best interest of the game. I thought that is what you had provided. Perhaps I am wrong.
Just my opinion,
Steve
[Edited by Bfair on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 03:59 PM]
|