Quote:
Originally posted by DG
You don't see this on TV because it would be an easy out for any team that would be playing on TV, thus it is not attempted.
|
No, Several years ago a couple of umpires and I sat down and did the physics, and this would be possible. Follow me for a minute:
When I played NCAA baseball, the coach told us that a ball needed to be hit at least 270 feet into the outfield in order for a reasonably fast runner to score on a fly ball from third. If the outfielder had a strong arm, then 300 feet might me needed. Consider:
1. R1 on first leading off 12-15 feet can get to second in two throws by the defense, one of 60 feet and the other of 127 feet. Thus, the runner travels about 75 feet in the same time that it takes two players to throw the ball 187 feet.
2. In college, during drills we proved that a player could run 90 feet in the same time that it took an outfielder to wind up and throw 270-300 feet (with a bounce of course).
Imagine an MLB player who overruns first on a base hit and heads out to straight away right field, exactly 200 feet from home plate with a runner on third. As the second baseman walks out to tag him, the runner on third leads off. R1, in right field, plants his feet firmly in the ground and does not move. If F4 throws to F9 to tag R1, from (1) above we know that R3 has plenty of time to scamper home. TWO throws would total obout 300 feet. That's an extra .5 -1.0 second that would be needed for the second fielder to wind up over and above the what was required in (2) above.
On the other hand, if F4 continues walking towards R1 above, R3 can continue increasing his lead from third. Somewhere around 150-180 feet from home (and still at least 20 feet from R1) R3 will have attained a 45 foot lead from third base. At this point, home plate is as close as third and R3 can scamper home.
So, this play is physically possible but you never see it. Why not? I maintain that an MLB umpire would put a stop to it for a number of reasons. Furthermore, although this play has gained internet legend status as legal, I believe that an umpire has authority under the rules to stop it. Here is why:
Prior to each pitch, there is an assumed period of relaxed action where:
1. The umpire can call time and dust off home plate.
2. The pitcher can request a new ball.
3. The catcher can request time to go talk to the pitcher
4. The coach can request time to visit the mound.
5. The batter can request time to do whatever.
With this crazy play, there is no period of relaxed action. If the catcher wants to visit the pitcher, he cannot call time because there is still a play to be made. Since there is no relaxed action, the 20 second clock does not start on the pitcher to pitch, and he could sit down near the mound and wait for R1 to make his next move. You, the umpire, could not enforce the 20 second rule because a play was still being made.
If you did call time, R1 would have to return to first before you could put the ball in play. If the batter tried to protect him by stepping out of the box, time is called and R1 must return to first. Then the pitcher could do a quick but legal delivery before R1 could get back to right field.
The list of f$$$ ups and bizarre stuff goes on and on. This is the reason that this play would never be allowed in MLB.
The umpire is on shaky ground when trying to deal with this since there is no clear written rule. He does not want a protest. One thing he can do is to continually call time as R1 moves to right field. A better alternative is to eject R1 and put in a replacement for him on first. Ejections are not protestable, since in a strict sense of the word, there has been no lost outs, runs, or strikes to the offensive team. Potential hits by the number 4 batter do not count in figuring out if an action by an umpire changed the outcome of the game. Thus an umpire can always enforce his will by an ejection without fear of protest. You do not even have to have a credible reason for a an ejection.
MLB is like the movie "Fiddler on the Roof. " Tradition rules. They are extremely sensitive to tradition. An MLB umpire would easily get away with ejecting R1 for making a travesty of the game.
Prior to WWI, I believe, (situation R3, R1, and R1 stealing) an MLB catcher threw a potato hidden in his glove to second. (in order to fool R3) He then fired the real ball to third getting R3. Despite lack of a rule regarding potatos, the umpire put R3 back on third and ejected the catcher. The umpire actions were upheld on protest. I would bet that a similar fate would befall R1 for trying the skunk in right field play and that is why you do not see this play on television.
Peter