View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 07, 2004, 05:10am
Carl Childress Carl Childress is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Re: Don't expect one either

Quote:
Originally posted by stevenump
Carl, if a runner, after the ball has become dead and he continued to a preceding base, begins to return to a previously occupied base, what should we as the umpire do?
To start with, I think you mean "succeeding" base. Right?

Let me say that a spell checker would certainly improve your posts. Next, I don't think it's any of your business that I'm a drunk, especially since I don't drink any more -- and drink a whole lot less. Next, I don't believe your Wendelstedt post. It's unsigned, and so there's no way we can check its validity or accuracy.

I am at a loss to understand what the problem is. Or rather, I actually know what the problem is with those who profess they don't understand these rules.

1. During a dead ball a runner may always return to touch a missed base or one he left too soon, even if after the ball became dead, he touched a succeeding base. (In that instance, he's subject to appeal.)

2. EXCEPT: Once the pitcher toes the rubber with the ball (and presumably the umpire declares the ball alive), the runner may not return. We know that in Fitzpatrick's ruling, at least, the ball is alive because he says the umpire must not permit the defense to play on the returning runner. Reason: It would negate their opportunity to appeal.

Mr. Small (and you're appropriately named, I might add), you and Gee remind me of those clerics of old who couldn't decide how many angels could sit on the head of a pin.

I think Mike's "warning" is a welcome addition to the published penalty for violation of 7.01.

(Let's be sure we understand that calling out a runner for violation of 7.01 CMT is authorized by 7.08i.)

Finally, one of Shakespeare's plays comes to mind. The only violations I've ever seen of 7.01 have occurred in print. We would stand to gain much more from a discussion of what constitutes batter interference with a catcher's attempt to prevent a stolen base. That's a violation that actually occurs in games.

It happened twice in my double, double-header this past Sunday. Temp at mid-afternoon, 85. Not bad for 5 December.

Of course, I'm just an amateur ump.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 7th, 2004 at 05:19 AM]
__________________
Papa C
My website
Reply With Quote