Quote:
Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Quote:
But the important part is not that the B-R didn't touch first; that's an easy appeal and nothing unusual. The situation is: B-R never advanced to first. He simply quit running.
|
Is there a difference between a BR who did not attempt to advance to 1B (such as the injured BR in the orginal J/R play) and a BR who merely did not beat the throw?
If this only applies to the former case this pill may be a little easier to swallow...
Dennis
|
Dennis:
Let's get the sequence down and see if you feel any better.
Two outs, R3, R2, B1 singles. R3 scores, R2 is out at the plate (3 outs), and then the catcher's throw to first beats the B-R to the bag?
That's the slowest batter-runner in history.
The point of the play has nothing to do with whether the throw beats B1. It has everything to do with the fact that B1 never tried for the bag.
For Jim Simms:
Jim, you should know my opinion of umpires who don't "see" something because they fear the consequences. There are lots of things I don't see, but it's because there's no harm, no foul.
If your Smittys think they
should call the B-R out for the 4th out (I think they're wrong, but...), when they don't do that, it's just dishonest! They should turn in their uniforms.
As I said, I bet two dollars to a penny the FED would not sanction the 4th out in these circumstances. Tell your Bubbas to rest easy.