Hunter,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wendelstedt School
The rulebook clearly states that either the base or the runner may be tagged in order to be put out. The only restriction noted is that the ball must be alive. The interpretation you cite originally came from Nick Bremigan (RIP). He transfered the requirement to tag the runner at home plate when he is in the immediate vicinity and returning, to every other base.
|
Similarly, the rule book clearly states that when a runner misses home plate, only the BASE need be tagged (Ref. OBR 7.10(d) ). Yet, in the MLBUM, there is explicit discussion that, if the runner is returning to attempt to touch the missed base, HE, rather than the base, must be tagged in order for the defense to obtain an out. Now your assertion that Nick transferred the 7.10(d) principle to 7.10(b) makes sense to me. Why it is improper to do so eludes me.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, this is not the opinion of most professional umpires.
|
Well, I guess I'd have to take your word on that point.
Quote:
|
There is no relaxed vs. unrelaxed action noted anywhere.
|
I have to disagree. While it does not employ the terms "relaxed" and "unrelaxed", the MLBUM discussion of 7.10(d) is unquestionably EMPLOYING the concepts behind those terms as defined in J/R in defining the proper way to rule.
Quote:
|
This shows the problem with umpires taking a specific area of the rules, and applying them to other areas of the field.
|
How?
Quote:
|
This often occurs with plays where contact occurs with a runner and fielder, both just doing there job. Specifically addressed for the area around home plate, the fictitious "tangle/untangle" ruling has been applied way too often on the field in situations where interference or obstruction should be called.
|
To me, an entirely different set of circumstances & I'm not sure what misconception you are referring to.
Quote:
|
Both of these situations are specifically addressed in the Wendelstedt Rules and Mechanics Manual; recently updated for 2008.
|
OK. Why is it that most MLB umpires disagree with the J/R interpretation on the original question posed in this thread?
JM