Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
That's the point. Neither does the OP, but some would attempt to justify outs using an interpretation of a rule that would result in outs in the example we are discussing here.
|
Apples and oranges. In the OP, runners are not guilty of passing each other or running bases in reverse. All they did was advance one base against the rules. It was the other scenario where runners switch bases that calls for outs due to base running infractions.
And that's where I fundamentally disagree with the ruling. We should treat both scenarios for what they are--cheating. Penalize any kind of shenanigans where runners try to take advantage by switching bases, advancing bases, etc., the same way. Rule the guilty runners out, and eject them.
By using base running infractions as the rationale behind ruling the switching base runners out, it prohibits a similar penalty in the OP. My contention is that the outs should be ruled because the runners wantonly and intentionally placed themselves on different bases than where they were prior to the conference to give themselves an unfair advantage. THAT'S what should be punished.