[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Try addressing the full paragraph.

I think you need to reread the rule. This applies to a squeeze play or steal. Simply running on the pitch is neither. Like many other instances, the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play.

Yes, the umpire is going to have to render a judgment on whether the play is attempting to steal or just moving on the pitch. I don't believe this rule is as difficult as you seem to want to make it.

Probably really sucks that I have two different books reaffirming my opinon that you dont disadvantage the offense with a OBS call and all you and WMB have are each other clinging whistfully to a scenario that WMB wrote hoping to test on a rule HE considers obscure - the scenario is simply incorrect to test on this rule and neither of you can present a similar scenario in either ASA or NFHS which would support your opinion.

What WMB should have done is used ASA's case play or VERY similar so as to be accurate.. because he stepped outside the boundries of this very NARROW rule where an immediate DB does NOT disadvantage the offense - into "DDB" for OBS where anything could have happened after the hit and a DB WOULD potentially disadvantage the offense. Its just an error in presentation.

Instead of simply admitting that the scenario was presented incorrectly to test on that rule you are adding stuff to the rule that is not there.

Just follow the rule mike, as written. Dont invent a bunch of stuff that isnt written there or supportable by case plays.

I've asked you both to provide evidence that on a hit you deadball immediately with CO.. still waiting.. it sure aint in the rule or case plays. Know why its not there mike? Know why you guys have no support for your position? Cuz you are both wrong. You dont disadvantage the offense with a CO call - plain and simple. If they get a hit, its DDB.

Inasmuch as you are both inventing stuff to add the rule that isnt written there or supportable by any evidence whatsoever.. and futhermore is DIRECTLY refuted in the NFHS Ump Ed program, it is actually you are making the rule much more difficult to understand than it is.