|
Another thought...
Why do some feel that it is o.k. to bring R1 back at-bat after the two pitches have been thrown, but that they couldn't bring him back if something had happened (hit, infield fly, whatever) on one of those two pitches?
Now, I know that the likely answer is: "well, because he's still at first, and nothing has happened (outs or hits) so its easy to bring him back."
"Easy" doesn't mean its correct. Subsequent action (pitch, play or attempted play) is subsequent action. Why should one give more weight to the next subsequent play being a double on the next pitch, than they would to the next pitch just being a called "ball" or "strike"? Where in the rules is there support for this notion (I guessing some will suggest BOO)?
As for the idea of "fairness" (which has been raised) wouldn't it be more "fair" to correct the mistake in a situation where, after the B/R improperly goes to first base, on the next pitch the next batter hits a double scoring the improper runner...as opposed to fixing it merely after two pitches caught by the catcher?
In the former, the offense gets a Double benefit: they not only get a runner, but they got a run as a result of the improper runner. In the latter the offense only got one benefit: a runner who may or may not score. I would think "fairness" would dictate that the umpire correct the mistake where the runner scores than where he is still at first after a couple of pitches because of the double benefit to the offense. (And as I previously said, IMO, "fairness" does not always lead to the correct result.)
In my mind both (a hit on the next pitch, or a next pitch caught by the catcher) are the same thing: subsequent action in the game that ends the period of time during which the "offended" team could protest and/or appeal.
Again, the umpire screwed up and "awarded" first as a result of a balk (either by positively telling him to go to first (which honest-to-God I saw happen in a varsity high school game once [I was not umpiring]!!!) or by simply letting him go to first). The time to protest the umpire's misapplication of the rules expired when the next pitch occured....whether that pitch was drilled for a home-run or simply caught by the catcher.
Just another thought...
|