Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dash_riprock
8-2-8...A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it BEFORE he is out.
|
Put the two together. One defines the out (7-4-1F), the fielder touching the base with the ball, or tagging the runner BEFORE the runner tags the base, right? 8-2-8 Defines WHEN the runner has ACQUIRED THE BASE; if he touches it before he is out. It doesn't say he has acquired it if he touches the base before the fielder has touched the base or him. It says
BEFORE HE IS OUT If the runner and the ball reach at the "same" time, the runner is NOT OUT because of 7-4-1f. BECAUSE HE IS NOT OUT, HE HAS ACQUIRED THE BASE BEFORE HE IS OUT AND THEREFORE HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8-2-8.
Everyone has their own philosophy, and I respect that. I was trying to point out that the way the rule is written, a tie is theoritically possible and that 7-4-1f governs the OUT.
I'm not some self indulgent troll looking to put anybody in their place. I'm trying to address a statement I believe to be false and I backed it up with the written rule, and I got challenged by dash_riprock with another rule. I took that rule along with the original rule, put them together and showed in a logical way that 8-2-8 is not a way to refute 7-4-1f.
I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion. Just read my argument and tell me if you think me logic is wrong. I suspect that there will be many of you who will read it and agree that my logic is correct. Whether or not you are willing to state that here, I don't know. I would like to think that at least one of you would.
After re-reading my OP, I admit I came on too strong, and I apologize for that. I didn't personally attack anyone, although some of you seem intent on attacking me. I can handle it.