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.
Sun Jul 30, 2006, 07:46pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
