Then reread the rule, Chuck.
Subsequent actions are, by rule, NOT to be taken into account to revise your initial assessment as to where to protect the runner to. Period. (Dakota has raised some valid questions about WHY we are to implement this way... and perhaps your example is another beef with the actual rule. But this IS the actual rule right now. Our opinions about the fairness of a particular rule should not prevent us from calling it by the book)
If you are doing so, you are not implementing the rules you are charged with implementing. Sorry if I sound like a harda$$ here, but it is what it is. The rule is exceedingly clear, and you seem to be not implementing it correctly.
|