Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43
I believe Wendelstedt's interp comes from the fact that both the missed base and home plate situations have their own ruling.
...................
Since both senarios are defined we must take each for their worth. If it was possible to scramble back to a missed base, one rule could have been all inclusive.
|
I think that there are two rules because the situation at the plate is inherently different to other bases. 7.10(d) is written to specifically to handle the situation in which the runner is (perhaps temporarily) not aware that he has missed the base, and believes that he is no longer a base runner. The rule allows the runner to be put out by tagging the plate. Here is the telling quote from the MLBUM (which by the way I regard as a higher authority than Evans): (MLBUM 5.3, PBUC 3.3)
"However, this rule only applies where a runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase the runner. It does not apply to the
ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, the runner must be tagged. In such cases, base-path rules still apply to the runner (i.e., he may not run more than three feet from the 'baseline' between him and the plate)." [my bolding of "ordinary play"]
A reasonable reading of this suggests (contrary to Wendelstedt) that the play at the plate is only special if the runner leaves the plate area. Other wise, it is treated just like any other ordinary play at any base, including base running rules.
Does this prove anything? Nope, it isn't that clear. But I am puzzled why you think that Wendelstedt's interp should be preferred to one that has been published for years.
Quote:
|
This is just a ruling that I found within a professional school manual. I don't mean to poo-poo J/R, just get the right interp.
|
J/R
is an updated version of a professional school manual, and I believe that the majority of today's MLB umpires used that manual in school.
And, while writing this post, I wanted to check the spelling of Bremigam (who wrote the article that popularized the extension of 7.10(d) to all bases) and ran across this thread:
Tag or no?.
If I'd seen that sooner, I wouldn't have needed to type much into this post!
The thread includes posts from Wendelstedt School, and, IMO, cogent responses from Coach JM and mbyron.