|
I bought off on this because I have nevr in 25 years had it happen and don't expect it too. I know, never say never.
What I did find interesing was Case paly 7.1.1 Sit D though. R1 steals home. The sit. specifically says the the pitch is not strike three or ball four. Then in the ruling it discusses what would happen if it was strike three (obvious) but, then coincidently leaves out any discussion about ball four.
Some may say it is obvious also but, we will never know.
I am still willing to settle for ambiquious and leave at that, and deal with it, if and when it ever happens.
|