Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sky Popper
Isn't the intent of the rule that the fielder have a chance to make a play on the ball? If "pass by" is not dependent on the distance between the fielder and the ball, why differentiate between "through" and "pass by"? Wouldn't "through" be just another way of passing by the fielder, so long as he doesn't touch it? Also, if the runner can be anywhere behind the fielder, why would the rule specify that the runner be "immediately behind" the fielder? It seems that "immediately behind" endorses the "in the vicinity of" interpretation.
Thanks,
Dennis
|
I too find David B.'s explanations ambiguous; I'm not sure he realizes that the true crux of the biscuit is the correct interpretation of "through or by." There are two competing definitions - the Evans "through the legs of or within the immediate reach," and the "string theory" which originated with Nick Bremigan at the professional school he taught at way back when, which applies a very liberal interpretation to the concept of "passes," explained by Jim Booth a few years ago as if you tied a string between all the infielders, then if the ball went past that string and then hit a runner, you should NOT call the runner out.
The string theory is NOT the current interpretation for pro baseball. The last modern authoritative adherent to the string theory was Rick Roder. His position was understandable, as he was a protege of Nick Bremigan. A couple of years ago when this issue flared up on the Internet and caught his (Roder's) attention, he used his position with the World Umpires Association to poll current active MLB umpires and he came back with a clear consensus for the Evans interpretation. He graciously conceded that his, and Bremigan's, interpretation had obviously been obsoleted by custom and practice, and he said he would incorporate the current interpretation in the next edition of his Rules of Baseball book. I don't own the book, so I don't know if he made the change or not. I do know that he's on board with the Evans interpretation.
Here's the simple, simple, way to enforce the rules correctly. A runner hit by an undeflected batted ball is out, period, unless it is clear he had no opportunity to avoid being hit because a fielder in front of him SHOULD HAVE made a play on the ball but didn't.
David B. should test his understanding of the current interpretation with these two caseplays:
Play 1: R2 and R3, all infielders are playing in on the grass because the game situation requires them to keep R3 from scoring at all cost. Ground ball up the middle that hits R2 on the base.
Play 2: R2 and R3, Barry Bonds at the plate and the defense has the Bonds shift on. No infielder is stationed on the 3rd base side of the infield. Bonds slices a ground ball through where F6 normally plays, and R2, advancing to 3B, is hit by the batted ball.
The correct call in both cases is "time, R2 is out, R3 returns to 3B." Adherents of the string theory will leave the ball live in Play 1 because one or more infielder is closer to the plate than R2 is, therefore the ball has "passed" an infielder when it hit R2. They will leave the ball live in Play 2 because R2 was hit when no other infielder had a play on the ball.
Both "string theory" interpretations are wrong, in my opinion simply by rule, but certainly when you also layer in the operative Evans (and MLBUM) interpretation of "through or by."
Hope that helps.