Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
Balancing the literal and the figurative, deciding when common sense overrides the book, adjusting the rules to the level of play. The art of umpiring. Maybe also ignoring rules that nobody knows about and that will just cause trouble.
Maybe it's better to posit an obvious break in continuing action and work backward from there:
R1 on 1B. B2 gets a base hit. R2 misses 2B and reaches 3B safely. Nobody calls time, and F6 throws the ball back to F1. B2 now takes off for 2B, F1 throws to F6, who puts his glove down on the forward edge of 2B as B2 slides into the glove and is put out. I assume that the throw back to F1 broke the continuing action and negated the accidental appeal otherwise created when F6 put his glove on 2B.
Or is that a double play?
|
Mule:
In debate there's a technique called reductio ad absurdem (reduce to the absurd). You're a master at that.
The FED is quite clear: Any tag of a runner who has missed a force base results in an out. Surely they will change that for next year. Plays like yours at the plate ought to prove rather beneficial to them when they consider altering their stance.
I have forwarded your most recent "monstrosity" to the appropriate authorities.
BTW: Kyle McNeely, advisor to the committee, has an article for Monday's eUmpire.com, in which he addresses the issues you have just broached.
Read it, and you'll feel better about everything.