|
20 years or so ago, there was an article in the Sunday N.Y. Times Magazine about two lefties who sued MLB as being discriminatory toward lefties (I think the primary basis for the lawsuit was the inherent disadvantage for lefties playing infield positions other than first base). The lawsuit was silly of course, but their proposed solution was interesting and provocative.
To make the game fair for all handedness, they proposed a rule change allowing the batter to run in either direction after becoming a runner. The batter's decision on which way to run had to be made at the instant he became a runner, and once made, it had to be maintained until he either scored or was put out.
Some of the consequences:
Two runners could now legally occupy the same base (as long as they were running in opposite directions) opening up the possibility for, among other things, the 7-run homer and the double play at the plate (or any other base for that matter).
A routine slow-roller to F3 was no longer routine, since the batter could choose to run clockwise, creating a difficult play for F5.
It would have been a nightmare to umpire - since the umps would have to remember the direction each runner chose to run. For example: R1, R2, less than two out, and the batter pops it up. Infield fly? Not if R2 was running clockwise.
For rulebook interpretations and case plays, runners would now require an additional designation for direction, e.g., R2CW or R3CCW.
It was, by far, the most interesting article I have ever read in the N.Y. Times.
|