Sorry, I didn't mean the FED casebook. This tactic is
directly addressed in BRD. See Section 401. In particular, OFF INTERP 243-401 and 159-401. Yes, I realize those are OBR interpretations, but BRD recommends you adopt those interpretations in your FED games.
And I would guess the
reason BRD makes such a recommendation is because the way we deal with such issues as running the bases in reverse order, abandonment, and baseline adherence really doesn't differ between FED and OBR.
This tactic is so common, and has been seen so many times, that it is
directly addressed in an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION.
On that basis, everybody can draw their own conclusions on how an umpire should handle it when it happens.
Personally, I'm going to "let it happen", and deal with whatever fallout occurs. I don't find it particularly complicated from an umpiring perspective. Now, the defense might be completely befuddled - but that's not
my problem.
If the offense attempts this play, there is a good chance the offensive coach understands how baseline infractions are
supposed to be handled. If the defensive coach complains about the tactic, there's a good chance that there is little this coach understands about baseline infractions anyway. It might be your opportunity to educate him. And, having done that, you've performed a useful service as an umpire to a coach who should learn to defend this tactic, sooner or later. By allowing it to happen, you have sharpened the learning curve and allowed it to happen
sooner.
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
I didn't realize this play was specifically mentioned in the Fed case book as being legal. If that's the case, then obviously we have to allow it. Looked quickly through the 2002 book just now and didn't see it. Where is it?
|