[QUOTE]
Originally posted by gobama84
Quote:
|
I know they are not running bases in reverse order, but they are running bases to confuse their opponents. IMO
|
Frankly, I think it to be a mere tactic of the game to force the defense to either allow the further advance of R1 or play on him, the latter effectively making a more difficult play on R3 advancing to home. Evidently the Fed, who addressed this situation in caseplay, feels the same.
While I'm not an advocate of the play, there are many things I like and don't like where others disagree. When specifically ruled against my understanding, I learn to accept it and move on if there's nothing I can do about it until it's changed.
Just remember on this play that
when R1 is being played upon his basepath is established directly to each base. I've seen situations where such a runner goes to the outfield cutout, is played upon, advances inward directly toward 2B, but when the throw is made to 2B he then retraces his footsteps back to where he was at the cutout. That is illegal. His basepath in that situation is directly to 1B, and not retracing his footsteps to the outfield. Although the fielder was still well away from the runner, R1 was declared out for leaving the basepath. The intent of the basepath rule is to prevent the fielder from having to chase the runner who is not advancing to a base. The rule served its purpose after the runner was played upon.
Freix