Travesty to the game

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

No...I wouldn't call Travesty in this situation. I've read that we should only be calling travesty in extreme situations...(ridiculously excessive appeals, running the bases backward, etc...)

No - "travesty of the game" appears exactly once in the rulebook. And it's not under the section called "ridiculously excessive appeals."

PS - some umpires will misunderstand this statement to mean that ANY running of the bases in reverse order is illegal because it makes a travesty of the game. Much the contrary - the rulebook provides for an out if the PURPOSE of the runner running the bases backward was to make a travesty of the game.

[LMan]

These same people will call Skunk in the Outfield a 'travesty of the game.'

[pingswinger]

Originally Posted by LMan

These same people will call Skunk in the Outfield a 'travesty of the game.'

Well said.

[justanotherblue]

I believe that's called smart baserunning. As long as BR doesn't run past home plate or run outside his established basepath to avoid a tag, it's legal.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

I believe that's called smart baserunning.

No, it's called incredibly stupid defense. No one with half a brain will chase a B/R heading back to home when all they have to do is touch first base.

[greymule]

"Travesty of the game" is among the most famous phrases in the English language, and as far as I know it has never been applied to anything other than running the bases backward. The Fed rulebook shouldn't co-opt it for anything else.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by greymule

"Travesty of the game" is among the most famous phrases in the English language, and as far as I know it has never been applied to anything other than running the bases backward.

You must not remember the "potato" throw-down to 3rd base.

[BretMan]

The whole "travesty" thing comes up a lot, is often wrongly applied and is one of those missaplications that really stick in my craw.

The actual rule:

(7.08) Any runner is out when- (i) After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call “Time” and declare the runner out.

The first point is that this rule is clearly applied ONLY to a runner. Not a batter, fielder, pitcher, coach, bat boy, hot dog vendor...

The second point: How can anyone read that rule and come up with the interpretation that it is saying:

Any runner is out... if he run the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense OR IF ANY OTHER GAME PARTICIPANT DOES ANYTHING IMAGINABLE OUT OF THE ORDINARY NOT COVERED BY THE RULES, AS JUDGED BY THE WHIM OF THE UMPIRE, HE SHALL ALSO BE CALLED OUT.

Yeah, I get a little wound-up about this one...

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by LMan

These same people will call Skunk in the Outfield a 'travesty of the game.'

And I believe that thinking the hands are part of the bat is a travesty also.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

No - "travesty of the game" appears exactly once in the rulebook. And it's not under the section called "ridiculously excessive appeals."

PS - some umpires will misunderstand this statement to mean that ANY running of the bases in reverse order is illegal because it makes a travesty of the game. Much the contrary - the rulebook provides for an out if the PURPOSE of the runner running the bases backward was to make a travesty of the game.

If you want to get into a reading and writing contest...you would probably win...since this isn't a writing and reading contest...I know that nearly everybody on here realizes the spirit of what I was writing. Other than an appeal situation where a runner would be running the bases backward in an effort to retouch...which we all know...when else, during play, wouldn't running the bases backward be creating a travesty? Also, I can think of a million things as a coach I could do to create a travesty of the game by excessively appealing...therefore, I direct your attention to Rule 9.01 (c) which states: Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

While I see your points sir..and yes, I'm not an attorney, journalist, or other professional writer, my writing probably should be more precise...but this isn't a board where we pick apart others' writing, but rather share ideas...if we want to quiz each other on rules and what's written verbatim in the rule book, then let's start a thread and we'll bounce rule questions back and forth until the cows come home.

[mcrowder]

Guess you missed the smiley ... but that's ok. I'll live.

Didn't mean to ruffle the feathers ... but I do think it's important to note that "travesty of the game" doesn't cover random events. We've all run across umpires that use that phrase as a crutch to make up rulings where they don't know the rule. Perhaps I overreacted some, as it's a pet peeve of mine to see that phrase thrown around where it doesn't belong.

Incidentally, a runner in a run down runs the bases in reverse order without it being a travesty. Also, it's completely conceivable for a runner to inadvertently overrun a base in reverse and be forced to retreat to another base to avoid being tagged out, without it being a travesty.

[LMan]

Last J/R I read authoritatively opined that the B/R could retreat back to the plate before he is subject to being called out. Assuming he observes all other baserunning rules in the meantime, of course.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Running back toward the plate is not a travesty. Misapplying the rule in this case is.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

No - "travesty of the game" appears exactly once in the rulebook. And it's not under the section called "ridiculously excessive appeals."

Mike,

Travesty of the game appears twice in the FED book. Ridiculously excessive appeals are the other mention of this. See Rule 8-2-5 #6 "More Than One Appeal."

[RPatrino]

Some of the pitching I've seen lately makes a travesty of the game...