Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
I tried appealing to common sense and fair play in earlier posts. It's no use. Everybody wants an easy out on this play. One out closer to the parking lot I suppose.  |
Steve,
I could be wrong, but mmtech doesn't strike me as a troll. If he were, he likely would have been back "pouring gasoline".
You are correct that there are many aspects of the play which he did NOT describe that would be essential to ruling on the play.
I have no idea if this was a play he saw, had related to him, or created as a "hypothetical".
To me, that's not important. The "interesting question" that the OP raises is, "Since the runner is not obligated to leave his base, and the fielder is not obligated to avoid the runner, how do you properly rule this sitch if you judge no intent by either party?"
I also agree with your kind of "real world" point about, "how can a fielder knock a runner off his base, make a catch, and come back and tag the runner without skippin' a beat" ? (if I may paraphrase). It would certainly be "unusual".
But, let's say it did happen, no intent, either party. Whatever you call, you're likely to be having a "conversation" with somebody. In my suggested ruling, I feel like I've got a "rules basis" for ruling it a train wreck. All I'm hearing with the "protect the runner" ruling is, "common sense and fair play".
They seem to believe that the "special exception" for the runner, that he need not avoid the fielder in this "special case" (i.e., in contact with his base) also imposes an
obligation on a "protected fielder" to avoid the runner in this special case. It does not.
I wouldn't be surprised if I never saw this happen in a game. Hadn't considered the question before mmtech's post. At least those of who have participated in this thread know what the relevant rules are (and perhaps some that are "not so much"). I thought it was a good discussion.
JM