Jicecone, there are several reasons we discuss plays that, at first glance, don't ever happen. When we determine rulings on crazy plays, we exercise our knowledge of definitions, rules, interpretations, spirit, and intent to come up with the correct ruling. Simply look at the different issues arose from this situation:
- When is a runner considered "out of the baseline"?
- When can such a runner be called out?
- When can a viable appeal be made? What is the relevance of relaxed/unrelaxed action in appeals?
- When can a runner who missed a base make a valid touch?
- When must a runner be tagged on an appeal?
- When can two opinions on a ruling both be correct, via 9.01(c)?
- When can a run score?
- When is a runner considered to have passed another runner?
If you think these issues are not important for umpires to know, you must not be an umpire.
When an impractical scenario is presented, we always want to keep in mind the practical issues related to that scenario. That, my friend, is the beauty of these internet boards. Better umpiring is the result--not because we know how to rule when "R3 tries to score on a base hit, but the throw to home..." but because we know
why we rule that way.
P-Sz
Tue Aug 07, 2001, 10:50am
Threaded Mode
