Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
As to establishing whether the batter runner is "forced" to advance, you need only raise your eyes to the level of OBR 4.09(a)Exception. If the batter-runner is truly "forced" to advance, why then is Exception(1) even necessary? Couldn't it be dispensed with, considering outs on the batter-runner would then be covered under Exception (2)? Where is the logic in discriminating between the two, if they are the same?
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 29th, 2001 at 01:36 AM]
|
Rex,
Don't raise your eyes too high, you may start seeing new clothes that really aren't there. It must be the strain of how high one must s-t-r-e-t-c-h to see some things.
__________________________________________________ _________
I think it is obvious that if one accepts that the game requires a BR to advance to first base, then all of the following make sense:
1) that the PBUC makes BR finish out the play which began with only 2 out thereby requiring BR to advance to first base. This is a proven with their recent ruling.
2) that the Fed and J/R recognize the 4th advantageous out and thereby requiring that the BR must advance to first base
3) that the rules can be read (not by Childress & Willson, but by others) that the BR need advance to first base
4) that the Fed rulebook in chapter 8 refers to a BR being forced to first base
5) that the Fed casebook requires BR to advance to first base
6) that JEA refers to BR being forced to first base (p.166)
7) that the advancing BR at first base is treated the same as a forced runner
8) that chapter 4 of OBR presents an example of BR being required to advance to first base.
NOW, you may accept the fact that the game of baseball requires the BR to advance to first base (as supported the the official interpretations and authoritative opinions) and common and customary practice,
OR..........You can believe as Childress and Willson and remain in a confusion as to why all these don't make sense. Perhaps you choose to muddy it up with verbage (and discuss poor worfing where the rule does not agree with your position) explaining that a BR is not required to advance to first-----regardless of what the official interpretations and authoritative opinions show. (Please note that the wording always seems appropriate when, indeed, it agrees with their position).
Are your eyes and brain to the level where you see wrinkles or do you see clothes?
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas