Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
Yes, what I said before... you are ruling a runner out on appeal for missing the base she is standing on at the time of the appeal. Barring an official interp from ASA, I just cannot agree with that based on the notion that the runner having missed the orange must "return" to the white within a defined "interval". The interval is prior to the appeal. She is there prior to the appeal.
This is an anomoly due to the wording of the double base rule, and I am not honoring an appeal based on such a notion (short of, as I said, an official interp from ASA).
|
First off all this is not an appeal for missing a base. This is an appeal for touching the wrong portion of the base. However, lets assume that it is. What base did they miss? The orange part of first base. What part is the batter-runner standing on in the OP? The white portion. So using the aforementioned logic, they are not standing on the base they missed.
The batter-runner is guilty of an infraction. They've done nothing to correct it. In the example of missing a base, the runner has to do something to rectify the situation. They have to go back and touch the base they missed. In this scenario the runner has done nothing to correct his mistake.
Using your interpretation, you can never call a batter-runner out on appeal who runs to and stops on the white portion of the bag when a play is made at first base from fair territory (I'm not including interference because Mike tolds us not to go there. :-) ). This negates the rule entirely.
I agree that the rule could have been worded better and that there is an anomaly that we have to reason out. However, I believe an out is the correct call based on my interpretation of the rule.
Just my opinion.