How is it that I knew my buddy from GA would jump on this one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
Version 1
R1 on third; R2 on first; 2 outs. B3 hits a double between center and left field. R2 misses 2nd on the way to 3rd base. R1 scores. Does the run score if the defense properly appeals.
Version 2
Runners at first and third and 2 outs. B3 hits a double between center and left field. R1 misses 2nd on the way to 3rd base. R3 scores. Does the run score if the defense properly appeals.
Now, is version 1 really so much easier? I don't believe so. I understand both versions. It's not as some have suggested that we can't understand it. Just because someone criticizes the current system doesn't mean we can't use it and don't understand it. There's no logically reason for version 1. Mike, you say that in softball we have to designate them just one time, implying that version 2 requires us to change their designation. This is not true. In a given case play we don't have to change their designation as the play goes on. It is much more logical to have R1 mean the runner on 1st.
|
Or:
Runners at the corners, two outs. On a double by B5, R4 misses 2B as R3 scores. Does the run count if the missed base is appealed properly?
The "logical" reason for the softball method is order we all learned as children, 1, then 2, then 3..... same order in which the runners advance around the bases.
In the other, R3 comes before R1 and you have B3 hitting a double with R3 scoring. Huh?
With the softball method, you can continue with subsequent plays without changing the designation. If in the above scenario, the appeal was denied. You now have R4 and R5 on 3B & 2B with B6 in the box, 2 outs and one run scored.
With the other, it would be R3(nee R1) and R2(nee B3) on 3B & 2B with B3 batting. Wait a minute, didn't B3 just bat and is now standing on 2B?
