View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 28, 2010, 11:00pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Randall, let me give you a way to look at this, as well as other similar situations, which might help you grasp the nuance you are struggling with.

You need to consider a batter-runner as a subset of runners. While there are specific situations that apply only to batter-runners, all rules that apply to runners ALSO apply to batter-runners. Now, if you can accept that as a possibility, your challenge now is to disprove that theory; find any rule that contradicts that subset theory, or any rule that applies to runners that doesn't also apply to batter-runners.

Consider that you would apply "runner" interference to a batter-runner, running out of the base path, other issues defined only to runners, and you also apply missing a base (first) in the same way, even though there are not identical and mirroring rules in each and every instance.

If you get to that point, you can apply the rules you now consider to have holes equally.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote