Help! Rules 5.09(f), 7.08(f), and 7.09(m)

[Saltydog]

Dave H.,
I'm 'good-to-go' on the ruling... in fact, this has been a great primer on this topic which has been cut and pasted for future use However, I still don't understand the 'why'. ie. If F3 missed the ball and F4 had opportunity, but the ball hit R1... then an advantage was taken from the defense. So I can see the 'why' here. But what is the 'why' rational for the ruling when the defense isn't disavantaged? Ie. Your 'Bonds shift' example. Geez in that case the runner may have actually helped the defense by possibly keeping the ball in the infield.
Just tying to make (common) sense of the ruling. (If the 'best answer' is "just because", well, I can deal with that too!)
SD

[Sky Popper]

As a newcomer to this website, I'd like to thank everyone for an informative, lively and respectful discussion.

In my original post the first sentence read, "What does 'through, or by' mean?", and in Dave Hensley's excellent wrap of the dialogue from earlier today his first sentence read, in part, ". . . the true crux of the biscuit is the correct interpretation of 'through, or by'".

We all spent four days and almost thirty posts showing how useful and interesting it can be to weave our way through an interpretation to come to an understanding of all the issues involved. Whether or not we come to complete consensus, we can understand each other's position and - if we want to - move on to what Saltydog brought up above, i.e. the "why" (or does it make sense) stage.


Take care all,

Dennis

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Saltydog

Dave H.,
I'm 'good-to-go' on the ruling... in fact, this has been a great primer on this topic which has been cut and pasted for future use However, I still don't understand the 'why'. ie. If F3 missed the ball and F4 had opportunity, but the ball hit R1... then an advantage was taken from the defense. So I can see the 'why' here. But what is the 'why' rational for the ruling when the defense isn't disavantaged? Ie. Your 'Bonds shift' example. Geez in that case the runner may have actually helped the defense by possibly keeping the ball in the infield.
Just tying to make (common) sense of the ruling. (If the 'best answer' is "just because", well, I can deal with that too!)
SD

My speculation, and this is purely my opinion and not supported by anything authoritative, is that the rulesmakers believe the principle that a runner must avoid interfering with the course of a batted ball - even when the defense doesn't have an imminent play - is necessary to keep baseball from turning in to something resembling soccer, in which runners might find ways to contact batted balls and alter their course with an advantage gained for the offense.

Just my theory.