over rule partners call...

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by LMan

Couldn't disagree more.

Like I said in a previous post, I know I'm wrong based on the mechanics.
IMO, the odds are so overwhelmingly in favor of something like this happening as compared to the uncontested runner missing home that it deserves some critical thought as to where the priorities are given.

No sarcasm intended here.
But are you and others in opposition to my viewpoint suggesting we blindly follow the letter of the law re: mechanics with no exceptions while also saying it's ok to fudge a bit on rules if it's the 'expected call'?

I'm not suggesting the mechanics be rewritten. I think it would be impossible to do so in a comprehensible fashion. What I am saying is there is room for exceptions.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by NIump50

But are you and others in opposition to my viewpoint suggesting we blindly follow the letter of the law re: mechanics with no exceptions while also saying it's ok to fudge a bit on rules if it's the 'expected call'?

Here's where I am on this: of course I agree that PU should be able to glance at the runners touch 3B and/or the plate without difficulty, and probably still see the foot at 1B. In this case, sure, if you see a pulled foot/whatever you give BU what you saw. But its still his call.

What I completely disagree with is your expectation/insistence that the PU prioritize his 'piggyback' of the 1B call over the touches at 3B and home. Its similiar to PU coming up to take the play on the lead runner at 3B in a R1-only situation: PU helps there if he can, but if he has to stay on the line to make a fair/foul call, then that's tough luck for the BU, the BU has to take that call.

Because the fair/foul call is the PU's priority. Just like the touch of 3B and HP is here.