Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
I understand what the book says. The problem here is that you have a league rule and it does change things. Whether it changes this or not is unspecified and I'm saying that as long as you have to make up the body of the rule, why not make it up in the most equitable fashion possible.
A solid argument might be made that we should be consistent with game ending procedures and I could respect that though I think it's less in line with how the game is actually played. The argument that the league rule can't change this rule but only other rules is somewhat lost on me though.
|
No... I believe the problem here (and I hate local rules as much as the next guy) is that you're trying to say that since there's a local rule that might apply, then there must be other ones, written or unwritten, that we can pretend apply. There's no need to add additional rules.
The league rule CAN change other rules. They can, should they choose, specify that a batter in THIS ONE case doesn't have to go to first. But they didn't ... so why are you choosing to add a rule that doesn't exist?
Just because an inning (or game, really!) APPEARS to be over does not mean it's over. I have a coach that consistently tells his players to complete the play (on either side of the ball) in situations where the run-limit is reached or in cases where it appears the game is over. Several thought he was either crazy, or just trying to get in extra practice...
Until the one day, where he needed 5 (the run rule in that league) to win the game. 4 runs in, tie game, R1 on 2nd, R1 on first. 1 out. Ball hit to right. R1 misses 3rd and scores. R1 also scores and BR stops at 2nd. The other coach appealed the miss at 3rd and got the 2nd out - but since his team kept playing, they won anyway. Had R1 not continued, we'd have had to keep playing that game. I've seen this team get "outs" on defense after the apparent inning-ending run had scored, and so far it hasn't mattered, but it COULD, in much the same manner as above.