Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
What makes you think the LBR is not in effect? Has the BR reached 1B or been retired? Yes. Is the ball in the possession of the pitcher in the circle? Yes.
That's it, the LBR is in effect. The onus is now on the BR which over ran 1B. Their (BR) options are clearly defined in 8.7.T.3
Of course, we could always just get rid of the LBR and kill the play when the umpire judges all play complete  |
OK, here is what is retroactive:
Example: Base hit to shallow left. BR overruns 1B, turns right and is heading back toward 1B. F7 is taking her time with the ball and finally throws it to F1. Immediately after F1 has the ball in the circle, BR breaks for 2B and reaches safely.
Notice: BR had turned right BEFORE the LBR was in effect. F7 still had the ball.
Now, you are saying the BR is commited to 1B because she turned right BEFORE the LBR was in effect? You are calling her out on a LBR violation?
I got an email from one of our members wondering why I was digging myself such a deep hole on this. Occasionally, I go off on a windmill tilting crusade about a rule that is poorly worded, poorly explained in the RS's, etc. (ex: the "blocking the base is obstruction" nonsense). I believe that the game is not harmed in any way whatsoever if the standard LBR was applied to BRs. I don't believe they (the BRs) need to give up anything in exchange for their protection from liability. After all, a try for second is a try for second. They have forfeited their liability; they don't need the umpire to step in and make sure they pay. I also think it is unnecessarily complex with the turn this way or that way, turn and stop, turn and no stop variations. And, finally, by the written rule, in the case of my example above, the rule was not in effect when the BR was doing her turning, yet it was in double secret effect (that it was in effect is left unstated in either the rule or the RS). Goofy.