What have you got?

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Read the post with Roder's response to refute most of what you said. I'm only commenting to refute this final sentence. PLEASE don't call it this way. R2 must be AHEAD of R3, not "equal to or ahead". In fact, it's been taught in numerous clinics that R2 must be COMPLETELY ahead of R3 - ANY overlap at all and there is no out yet. the example given in one clinic I attended was BR and R1 hugging and spinning in a circle after a home run. BR, in that case, was never 100% AHEAD OF R1, even though the majority of his body was, and there is no out here.

I humbly admit that for the moment I stand corrected.

Roder may come to his senses in the future, until then I'll conform

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I humbly admit that for the moment I stand corrected.

Roder may come to his senses in the future, until then I'll conform

Not that I disagree with Rick in this instance, in fact, I do agree with him, however, it is best to remember that he is not a member of the rules committee. Rather, he is an employee of the umpires union, not the MLB.

His opinions, in those cases when he does not poll the MLB umps, or quotes the MLBUM or casebook, are just that, his opinions. And, while he has a much more intensive background in the rules than most, he has been wrong.

[DG]

Why does anyone want to rule R2 out who is merely in contact with 3b when R3 stumbles past 3b toward LF? That's what I want to know?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by DG

Why does anyone want to rule R2 out who is merely in contact with 3b when R3 stumbles past 3b toward LF? That's what I want to know?

Because I thought that this put R2 ahead of R3 on the basepaths... I was wrong, and have admitted my mistake. That's why I love this forum... a deeper understanding is always reached.

Now I only have a couple more bites of crow left... tastes like chicken.