Quote:
Originally posted by Gee
Now we go to an infield that is playing at NORMAL DEPTH and the runner is hit by a NON DEFLECTED ball. The fair batted ball has passed an infielder and no other infielder has a reasonable play on the ball. That is what this whole discussion is about, right. OK
Now the ball hits a runner. What's the call? In OBR the ump has to decide if the fielder has had a reasonable chance (5 feet) to make the play. If he has, the runner is safe. If he hasn't, the runner is out. Simple, right.
Now we go to FED. Same play, What's the call? No consideration is given to "reasonable chance" just bang him out. Now you mention the "string" theory. If that is written into the FED ruling I'll buy it, definitive, end of discussion.
Now the question is, is that written into the FED ruling or is it just a theory, used by you and others, to justify this call? After all, you need something to justify it and from what I've read there is nothing else.
OMT (That means, One More Thing) I am not saying your wrong, as I have no reference to the FED rules. I'm just asking why there is such a big difference in the two rulings. It appears to me that this is ruling by default. G.
|
There is no difference in the rulings whether the infield is drawn in or at normal depth. In OBR, it only matters whether a fielder had a play. In FED and NCAA, it only matters whether the ball went father from the plate than the fielder.
It's not the only difference between FED and OBR, and it's not the most "egregious".