Quote:
|
Originally Posted by greymule
The J/R example is an obvious case. "Rounds 1B and passes him" clearly indicates passing on the base paths.
If BR overruns 1B down the RF line, did he pass a preceding runner whose foot is touching 1B? I would say no, though I admit you could argue that this is a special case.
Abel on 1B. Baker hits a liner at F4. Abel, who had started toward 2B, dives back into 1B, but his momentum is too great, so he fails to hold onto the bag and skids into foul territory. The ball deflects off F4's glove and rolls toward the foul line, away from both F4 and F9. Baker steps on 1B as Abel, lying in foul territory unable to reach 1B with his outstretched hands, gets up and, finally grasping the situation, tries to make it to 2B.
Did Baker pass Abel by stepping on 1B? I would say no. Does Abel have to touch 1B on the way to 2B? Again I would say no.
Now, with Abel lying on the foul side of 1B:
a. If Baker makes any kind of motion past 1B toward 2B, he has passed Abel.
b. Same if Baker stops on 1B with one foot toward 2B.
c. If Baker overruns 1B toward RF . . . that's a tough one, but I still don't think I'd call that passing the runner.
|
If Baker is standing on 1st and Abel is lying in foul ground after retouching and sliding beyond 1st, there is no way that Abel can possibly get to second without
passing Baker. Both have the identical line to the next base and Abel cannot get there first without passing Baker. If Abel has to pass Baker to get to 2nd then it seems to me that at some point Baker must have passed Abel.
From a strictly logical perspective this seems irrefutable. If there is precedent or rule that contradicts this logic I'm more than willing to accept it.
If there is not, then IMO it only makes sense to take the rule as stated and deal with it logically.