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 Sat Jun 23, 2007, 07:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbfoulds
Sure I do, he's the one ... STANDING RIGHT THERE.
I certainly know that there were 2 runners on base, one scored, and one is still there. I can certainly go to the scorebook and determine that the fellow who "scored" is after the fellow who is still standing on a base in the BO; from this information I can certainly derive proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a switch has occurred. At which point I'm adopting mbyron's course of action, and I'm ejecting every possible culprit I can find. I'm also cancelling the run, 'tho I'm less sanguine about my rule support for this one; but that's OK - I DARE the cheating ba$tards to protest.
Thank you. In fact, I watch for this kind of thing when multiple runners are on. But if, as in the OP, I had missed it, I could easily look it up in the book. Maybe some people don't know that umpires are allowed to do this.

Dave's right that BOO would cause the same symptoms, and he's also right that these things unravel fast under scrutiny. Moreover, although I don't keep the lineup in my head, I do notice whether the little guy batted before or after the big guy.

We can't use the rule against passing another runner, which applies only during live ball and is a baserunning mistake, not an act of cheating.

As for allowing the run, I just can't see it. I don't accept the analogy of an illegal bat or glove: those are specific rule violations with specific penalties attached. This blatant act of cheating must be corrected, or there would be too much cheese for future rats.

And, as Carter so neatly points out: I'd love to attend the protest hearing over my canceling the run.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 25, 2007, 08:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,191
FED had this play (except the discovery was timely, and not a few pitches after one of the runners had scored) in one of their interps a few years ago. IIRC, the ruling was "R1 is out for passing a runner. R2 is out for running the bases in reverse order. The coach is ejected for unsporting conduct."
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 25, 2007, 11:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
I can see FED ruling that way - if you eject both runners, too often the game would be over (when teams field only 9).

The FED ruling probably had R1 and R2 reversed from what you describe (R1 initially on 3B, now 2B, ran the bases in reverse).
__________________
Cheers,
mb
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
An interesting play Patsfan2431 Football 14 Tue Oct 17, 2006 01:19pm
Interesting Play tzme415 Softball 5 Fri May 05, 2006 04:00pm
Another interesting play... Skahtboi Softball 8 Wed Oct 19, 2005 08:55am
interesting play! refTN Basketball 37 Fri Aug 26, 2005 04:26pm
Interesting Play heyblue Softball 9 Mon Oct 25, 2004 09:54pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1