View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 07:19pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
I can explain the rationale (as explained to me several years ago; not sure if by my esteemed colleague in Texas, or the one in Ohio), I can't explain why the poorly worded rules sections don't reflect the wishes of the rules committee.

The intent is to separate when detached equipment keeps a ball from entering dead ball territory versus any other case where the ball would have remained in play, regardless. In the latter cases, the 8-4-3-e standards are intended to apply, which relate to the time of the pitch or throw; a minimum award, with the ball remaining alive and runners having the option to advance further at their own risk.

But, when the detached equipment is an intentional attempt to stop the ball from entering dead ball territory, the later effect of applying awards from the time of the contact may result in a better result for the offense, and is intended to be a more punitive award. Like the difference in an unintentional catch and carry versus intentionally throwing, carrying, or kicking the ball into dead ball territory in an attempt to minimize offensive advances.

So the case play poorly describes that rationale; and the rules wording doesn't even support it.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote