Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan
ok, lets just forget about it, and get a ruling from HQ  |
I'm not getting you at all. I was asking you to clarify your statement - which is either just wrong or ambiguous - I can't tell which. Why do we need a ruling on a situation that is black and white.
Let me ask what I feel to be an analogous, but more easily understood example:
No outs, bases loaded. Batter pops to mid-range RF (not an IFF), and in disgust heads straight for the dugout and enters it. The ball is not caught by RF. Tagging runners take off, all 3 advancing. BR called out for abandonment.
Any of you folks sending the runners back in this sitch? Of course not. No reason to - the advances happened during a live ball. Just as the advance home occurred in the OP - during a live ball. The only difference (which protects the runner MORE than the scenario I described, not less) is that the runner is advancing without liability to be put out. If you're not returning the runners in a scenario where the runners are NOT protected, why are you returning them in a similar scenario where the runners ARE protected?
Let me ask another. Say the OP happened in the 1st inning (who knows why BR refused to go to first base and went to the dugout, maybe he thought it was strike three instead of ball four) - and BR goes to the dugout after a bases loaded walk. Would you put runners back in that scenario? Of course not - so why do you want to do so in extra innings?