Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Without referencing individuals;
The former interpretation was issued by the former Deputy Director of Umpires. However, as you note, there never was specific rule coverage applicable.
The current Director of Umpires is directing the NUS to only use interpretations which can be supported by rule; this was intentionally removed from the casebook for that reason.
I would conclude that a runner is not out for an intentional crash with a fielder without the ball; just ejected for USC.
|
Well, let me toss this out there, and keep in mind my book is back in my car. Again. The rule book (roughly) states that if we apply a rule, the ruling must not be in favor of the team at fault.
Wouldn't allowing the runner to score be ruling in favor of the team at fault?
Also, if umpires aren't allowed to use their discretion on plays that aren't covered in the rule book, why does rule 10-1 even exist? My interpretation of that rule is exactly as I had mentioned before: if it ain't in the book, it's umpire's discretion to determine the call based on the integrity of the game, guided by the spirit of the rule book. I know, I know, sounds a bit like a lofty concept, but I could think of no other way to phrase it.
