The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 30, 2006, 07:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There are no rules and those are the rules. NCAA JeffTheRef Basketball 6 Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1