|
I think most of us (and the rule writers) have assumed "if the runner has scored, and there are already 3 outs, you can make an appeal on THAT runner to nullify HIS/HER run" as above.
Is this nearly TWP something the rule writers never expected? Logic says each non-trailing runner must be appealed separately, but 5.5.c literally says
"no runs" if "fourth out", etc. Literal reading of a rule which is that specific takes precedence over logic or "something the rule writers never expected".
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|