Quote:
Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Steve, you've put a lot of effort in trying to defend your position, so why not apply the same effort on getting the PBUC to rethink their interpretation?
|
I do not know if I am all that opposed to the PBUC ruling. There are two major issues here:
1) Does the third out end the inning
2) Should a BR be required to advance and touch the first required base before being put out
Both have merit.
The third out ending the inning already is not always true. Irrespective of the PBUC ruling, advantageous 4th outs have been recognized for baserunning infractions. So, the sanctity of 3 outs ending the inning is tarnished already.
The batter being required to attempt to advance at least one base is important. Advancing and scoring runs is, indeed,
the goal of the game. First base is the "first" base that a BR can acquire. I believe he is and should be required to advance to it until such time as he is put out. He started in the play, make him be part of the play or finish the play. The PBUC, J/R , Fed casebook (IMO), and rulebook all require it (IMO). It can be a boring game without it. Let's face it, a prizefight is not very exciting when a fighter just stands there and gets beat up. Those who watched Jerry Quarry can attest to that. Unfortunately, Jerry did it moreso due to lack of talent vs. lack of effort.
Making the BR complete the play he started by attempting to acquire first or be put out is not an obtuse thought. Interpretations support it, and Childress opinion (with no support data) denies it. If not obtaining first without being put out is considered a running infraction, then it ties nicely into the current wording of the rules (including the scoring rules).
To think that PBUC allows you to physically obtain the 4th out there yet not appeal it is ludicrous. In OBR, the physical act to either put out the BR or to make the appeal are identical. No difference whatsoever. Yet Carl states PBUC allows the putout but not the appeal......what is the difference? The only difference is that Childress says it is not appealable,
not the PBUC saying it is not the appealable. The physical act is the same, and the PBUC says the runner is out for the 4th advantageous out. Is Childress attempting to impose his own opinions now as a messenger with those of the ruling? That is not the job of the messenger.
Did the PBUC tell you this was not appealable, Carl, or is that just your interpretation? Do you care to answer this? Likely not might the truth be known. No, I am not attacking the messenger. I am questioning the means in which the message is delivered and questioning whether some personal opinion of the messenger may be muddying the message.
With that single point accepted, that a BR must reach first base or run risk of being put out, it brings sense to all the other factors with loose ends. The loose ends Childress has no answer for.
Just my opinion,
Steve