Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
From a previous thread on this subject:
Quote:
From my 2008 BRD section 427:
After a time out where all runners huddled, the umpire discovers that R1 switched places wit R2. Both runners are out - R2 for running the bases in reverse order; R1 for passing a preceding runner [Website, 2003, #3]
|
Now if we can only find the 2003 interps (I'm sure I have them at home) |
I'm not too keen on using the base-running infractions of running in reverse order and passing a preceding runner to come up with the solution to this scenario. For one, these infractions actually took place when the ball was dead. The runners didn't do what the ruling says they did when play was live, so how can you rule as such?
Also, the ruling doesn't address other potential scenarios like the OP. There is no base-running infraction when runners start at first and second before the huddle, and then occupy second and third afterward.
If the interpreters really want to treat these shenanigans as egregious violations to the spirit of the game that warrant everyone involved ruled out and ejected, then they should simply say that, and not try to justify the rulings by using extremely liberal (and somewhat nonsensical) interpretations of the base-running rules.