|
First I do understand ASA's interpretation as written on how to call this...
But I ask you to think about this...
AltUmpSteve posted...
"Think of this, EsqUmp. How can the BR be out (by definition) any time NOT prior to reaching first?? If after reaching first, isn't that individual no longer a BR, now a runner?? Any time a BR is out, if that is the 3rd out (or a 4th out appeal), no run can score. Period, ever."
"Anytime a BR is out, and that is NOT a 3rd out, then there can be no other force after (chronologically) THAT (on the BR) out; because all forces are removed when a trailing runner is out. Even on appeal. So runs scored in advance of the 3rd out must score."
Irish posted...
"When it comes down to multiple decisions on a single play, are we not usually told to address each portion(s) of the play in the order in which each occurred? Question would be, I guess, would you address the missed base or the appeal first."
I ask then...
Is it wrong in thinking the appeal of the missed base is the defense's way of asking for a ruling on the force?
I also ask...
Then why would a trailing runner ( runner from first ) being thrown out at third over ride a force ( runner from second missing third) the force violation, when it happen before the runner from first being thrown out?
Would this not be awarding the offense and letting them score a run and take away the defense's chance to keep a run from scoring?
Just something to think about on what the did or did not think about when decided on this ruling.
I would hope that it is brought back up to be reconsidered.
|