I ain't letting it go

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Buster: The batter-runner failing to go to first is not an infraction.

Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

"F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first.
Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l)."

__________________________________________________ ________

Have Carl explain this one to you Buster. Do my eyes deceive me, or does it say "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first.
Now, read Carl's statement at the top of this page. I felt that umps declared people out for infractions. Maybe it's different in Edinburgh. Maybe they also declare them out for home runs down there. After all, they don't seem to want to make them run the bases.

Although Rule 8-1-1b uses the terminology "entitled" to run, it is obvious the interpretation as shown here in the casebook "requires" the BR to run or else he is declared out. I wonder why the Fed put in this casebook play.
Could it be to CLARIFY ?????

Now, that sure seems to me that the Fed is saying the BR must attempt to reach first base. Let's see what double talk we can get as an answer on this one. Perhaps Childress does not consider the casebook as authoritative as his personal opinions.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 30th, 2001 at 02:05 AM]