looking for the intent of the rule....

[BigUmp56]

As it's been explained to me, and in my opinion this makes sense, PWL has the right idea. The reason for the differing persons who are to be called out is to make the penalty as severe as possible. Either way the run from third is not allowed to score. So, if with less than two outs you return him you give the offense another opportunity to bring him in by calling the batter out and bringing another batter to the plate.

Since with two outs the runner can't score anyway and calling him out would end the half inning, the more severe penalty is to call the batter out and take his AB away from him.


Tim.

[phillips.alex]

i need to be more clear. I understand that with two outs it makes sense to call out the batter so he will not be up to bat in the next inning. I am talking with less than two outs.

What i am looking for is a reason to create a more severe penalty for a runner going from third to home than from second to third.

If the same penalty is used from third to home as from second to third, the run would not score. The batter would be called out, and the runner would be sent back to third. This creates no advantage for the offense, and they are substantially penalized by now having another out. If the play is repeated (with only one out) they will still not gain an advantage.

It seems as though the FED rulemakers are for some reason giving a more severe penalty where one does not seem necessary.

thanks

alex phillips

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by phillips.alex

It seems as though the FED rulemakers are for some reason giving a more severe penalty where one does not seem necessary.

thanks

alex phillips

This rule is the same in all codes.

[phillips.alex]

thanks pwl, that is what i was looking for.