Old baseball rules...

[Kevin Finnerty]

Here are the oldest rules you'll find, and it's unclear:

[SanDiegoSteve]

To my knowledge, you could never legally run to third instead of first.

A player in the early 1900s named Germany Schaefer is responsible for the rules stating that no player shall run the bases in reverse order to confuse the defense or to make a travesty of the game.

Here is part of the Wikipedia entry for Germany Schaefer:

With runners on first and third, a common ploy in baseball at the time was an attempted double steal, where the runner heading from first (in this case Schaefer) ran for second, hoping to draw a throw from the catcher as the runner on third tried to scamper home. The catcher did not throw the first time, inspiring Schaefer to steal first base in reverse and then attempt the double steal once more on the following pitch.

On August 4, 1911, Schaefer tried the same stunt again, this time for the Washington Senators, inspiring the Chicago White Sox' manager, Hugh Duffy, to come out of the dugout to protest. With the chaos on the field, Clyde Milan attempted to steal home, where he was thrown out. This event was recorded by both the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune on the following day.

Although it was not passed until 1920, after Schaefer's death, rule 7.08i states that a player is out if "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." It is often said that it was passed because of Schaefer's thefts.

[ozzy6900]

This should keep you busy for a while.

I invite everyone to take a look at these. You will learn a lot about the game by reading how it used to be played. Sorry, no Canadian translation, eh?

Historical Rule Change Timeline

1845 Knickerbocker Rules by Alexander Cartwright (clearer copy)

1858 Rules of the Massachusetts Game / Town Ball

The Strike Zone: A Chronological Examination

[Kevin Finnerty]

We'll,besure,to take you up on that tip!Thanks for sharing,it,there,Bob!

[yawetag]

That was almost like a commercial break. Not having television, I loved it.

[dash_riprock]

20 years or so ago, there was an article in the Sunday N.Y. Times Magazine about two lefties who sued MLB as being discriminatory toward lefties (I think the primary basis for the lawsuit was the inherent disadvantage for lefties playing infield positions other than first base). The lawsuit was silly of course, but their proposed solution was interesting and provocative.

To make the game fair for all handedness, they proposed a rule change allowing the batter to run in either direction after becoming a runner. The batter's decision on which way to run had to be made at the instant he became a runner, and once made, it had to be maintained until he either scored or was put out.

Some of the consequences:

Two runners could now legally occupy the same base (as long as they were running in opposite directions) opening up the possibility for, among other things, the 7-run homer and the double play at the plate (or any other base for that matter).

A routine slow-roller to F3 was no longer routine, since the batter could choose to run clockwise, creating a difficult play for F5.

It would have been a nightmare to umpire - since the umps would have to remember the direction each runner chose to run. For example: R1, R2, less than two out, and the batter pops it up. Infield fly? Not if R2 was running clockwise.

For rulebook interpretations and case plays, runners would now require an additional designation for direction, e.g., R2CW or R3CCW.

It was, by far, the most interesting article I have ever read in the N.Y. Times.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

To make the game fair for all handedness, ...

A little off-season trivia for the board:

Anybody know the two sports that, by rule, prevent participants from playing left handed?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

20 years or so ago, there was an article in the Sunday N.Y. Times Magazine about two lefties who sued MLB as being discriminatory toward lefties (I think the primary basis for the lawsuit was the inherent disadvantage for lefties playing infield positions other than first base). The lawsuit was silly of course, but their proposed solution was interesting and provocative.

To make the game fair for all handedness, they proposed a rule change allowing the batter to run in either direction after becoming a runner. The batter's decision on which way to run had to be made at the instant he became a runner, and once made, it had to be maintained until he either scored or was put out.

Some of the consequences:

Two runners could now legally occupy the same base (as long as they were running in opposite directions) opening up the possibility for, among other things, the 7-run homer and the double play at the plate (or any other base for that matter).

A routine slow-roller to F3 was no longer routine, since the batter could choose to run clockwise, creating a difficult play for F5.

It would have been a nightmare to umpire - since the umps would have to remember the direction each runner chose to run. For example: R1, R2, less than two out, and the batter pops it up. Infield fly? Not if R2 was running clockwise.

For rulebook interpretations and case plays, runners would now require an additional designation for direction, e.g., R2CW or R3CCW.

It was, by far, the most interesting article I have ever read in the N.Y. Times.

This article wasn't posted on April1, was it?

JJ