[DownTownTonyBrown]

My perception of the mentality of participants on the baseball forum is different from what I see on the other forums... Basketball in particular.

Many are the times that I participate in discussions there, that turn into the generation of a well thought out interpretation... that holds water, and is defensible, based upon the combination of various rules and casebook plays. Baseball discussions don't seem to work that way; we seem to stick, steadfastly, to the rulebook statements despite their illogical application to inappropriate situations.

Why would we award two bases for a ball that is trapped in player equipment? Is it really to reward the offense for a job well done? Or is it to penalize the defense for this undefensible, serendipitous, anomaly? WHY? It is a simple question. Why is there not a simple, LOGICAL answer? Why do we enforce rulebook legality when we have the capacity to think logically and make an appropriate enforcement? It is done time and time again for basketball using the advantage/disadvantage principles. I think there are times we do this in baseball as well.

Two base award for DETACHED player equipment...? Okay, penalize the defense for leaving their equipment laying around - that's alright. The only places I can envision a ball getting trapped for properly ATTACHED equipment is in a shirt, or behind a catcher's chest protector, or stuck in a mitt/glove. None of those three anomalous situations are too terribly difficult for the defense to remedy and wouldn't take more than a couple seconds. Runners are fast but I can't imagine one of them gaining two bases during the recovery time of pulling out a shirt or lifting a chest protector to find the ball. So now does the FED rule penalize the offense by limiting it to two bases... NO. I don't think so. Does the FED rule penalize the defense by making an award of two bases, that would likely not have been acheived... YES; I do think it does - defense penalized.

I think it is a very stupid rule and a very shortsighted RULEBOOK interpretation. If the defense can get the ball out and make a play or throw his mitt to make a play... more power to them.

It is the defense that is going to be slighted in these unforeseeable, undefensible situations and I think it is a very poor judgement to award two bases unless the ball really is so severly trapped that it is impossible for the defense to make a play... then I do agree - the offense should be limited to two bases because the defense has done nothing wrong... and the offense has done nothing spectacularly right to warrant a live ball, run until you get home.

If the ball really is trapped such that no play can be made, then the rule fits. And it is likely more reward than the offense deserves.

I hope the FED rulemakers clarify this rule.

I just envisioned a play where the ball is stuck in the pitcher's glove such that when he desparately pulls the ball from his glove, the ball and the glove separate and the glove falls from his hand to the ground. The ball is free and is thrown for the out.... stop all play and award two bases???? Heaven forbid.

It hasn't happened to me yet but when it does... the entire crowd is going to say they've seen a similar play on ESPN highlights where the pitcher threw his entire glove and the ball and the umpire called the out.

Yeah, I saw it too. NFHS has a specific, extremely narrow minded interpretation that the offense should get two bases for such a heinous act by the defense. Sorry. It sucks but those are the rules. And there goes my officiating carreer down the ****ter.

Well it's late, I gotta go to bed.