Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
The UIC at the Nationals did not give the same response you just did. He said to the coach that he understood the concern, but that there was nothing he could do about it because the umpires had left the field. To me this implies that there was something more than what you are offering.
|
If it implies anything, it implies that the UIC didn't fully understand the situation. His implication that "nothing can be done because the umpires had left the field" may have simply been a cop out, or perhaps a valid answer to the fact that the coaches never actually protested until later... I'm speculating though.
Quote:
|
As for my logic, Rule 10 allows the umpire to make a ruling on a rule that does not exist.
|
There's the problem though - rules do exist that completely cover this situation. Any runner forced to advance due to the BB does so without liability to be put out. period. Nothing else need be discussed.
Quote:
|
If runners are allowed to advance without liability to be put out because of a force on an awarded base to BR. The force was removed.
|
No, these runners are allowed to advance without liability to be put out. It says nothing about these rights disappearing due to a subsequent out on BR that removes a force. In fact, a similar situation was discussed quite a while back - with R1 and R2 on 2nd and 1st, BR walked and rounded the bag toward 2nd and was tagged out after rounding (who knows why!). Defense then threw to third where R1 was lollygagging toward, and tagged - ruling was that R1 is still "entitled to advance without liability to be put out", despite the force being removed due to the disappearance of BR.
Quote:
|
I could not just stand by and allow the game to end that way.
|
What way?
Quote:
|
I would put the runners back on the base and invoke Rule 10.
|
Why not just use rules 1-9 when there's an applicable one, as in this case?