Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
Good discussion but, the rule is enforced based upon wether or not he has "Touched" the base last time by, or last time he passed. The question is what is an acceptable definition for having being considered as "passing the base. Besides your having talked to "several umpires", and "Mbcrowder's answer" this is not definitized by rule.
Does a runner not being played upon, have to run directly to the next base? I think not. So the rule allows you to run as you see fit and your saying that your going to forget that rule, in order to apply another one. Well give me a reference that allows that.
I am really open to being convinced otherwise.
|
No, my "answer" is not in the book. The book merely says, "it is the umpires judgement...". My answer was an attempt to put some definition to what MY judgement would likely be, and if someone asked - that's what I'd suggest they use because it makes sense. Feel free to have your own judgement. However, you seem to be saying that if there's no play on the runner, then you would never ever consider this runner as having attempted to return to 2nd, and/or never ever consider this runner as having passed 3rd base (in reverse).
If that's true, then if the runner thought it was going to be caught (as in the OP), ran back to third and OVER third, without touching, and then almost to 2nd - whereupon he sees the ball NOT caught... by your interp, this runner can simply run over the pitcher's mound to go home. Surely that's not correct.