Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
The safety base changes are also intelligent. There are many plays in which the right fielder throws out a runner at 1B, so why not go for safety there, too?
|
That part is intelligent. The others, IMO, are not. Jerry Hanson maintained that allowing the offense to use either base at any time other than when a play is being made on the BR is basically making it easier for the offense to understand. IMO, which was not that of the majority, it is simply dummying down a rule that has just gotten to the point of acceptability and understanding by the players, coaches and managers. It was argued that it gives the offense no advantage. I disagree. It gives the player occupying 1B the opportunity to get a running start on the pitch, hit or tag-up.
Quote:
Since ASA did not amend their OBS rule about an intervening play canceling the immunity of a runner who had safely reached the base he would have reached without the OBS, I assume that ASA meant what it said last year, that there had to be an intervening play. Our UIC had maintained that an intervening play was not necessary even though the book said it was.
|
I believe the actually terminology used was "subsequent" play on another runner, but there was never a doubt what was meant by the rule. It was clearly covered in last year's published rule changes and the National UIC Clinic in February. At first, I also thought they should have taken it to be anytime, but then I started thinking about how goofy it could get with some pretty off-the-wall rulings. With a subsequent play, there is a definite division of plays so it would be quite clear to most when the runner would voluntarily move into a position of jeopardy.