Old baseball rules...
 

Can someone help me witha reference to old baseball rules. I'm looking for the reference that you could run the bases in either direction. I'm pretty sure this was legal at one time and you could potentially have two runners standing on second base at the same time.

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

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...uy/20Rules.jpg

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.

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? :D

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

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

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

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.

A little off-season trivia for the board:

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

jai alai (pretty sure)

fencing (guess)
jousting (guess)
arm wrestling (guess -- and I think someone invented a machaized device to allow this)

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

JJ

I know there are lefty fencers. What about field hockey?

Jai alai is correct! Leave it to the Basques to come up with something like that...

The others are not, AFAIK, though one is on the right track...

I would say jousting, as it would give one rider and unfair advantage of having the lance on the inside (closer to their opponent) during the pass.

There is no rule in Jai-Alai prohibiting left handed play. While there are no professionals that tie the cesta to the left hand, there have been players with no right arms who played left handed, as well as experts who were made to play left handed as a handicap. Some rules list this as prohibited because there is no right hand wall, but it has been done.

How many posters are aware that in some American public schools, attempts were make to convert left-handed children to right-handedness? A left-handed child literally had his left arm tied behind his back in class, to force use of the right hand. Parents of left-handed children were not consulted and could not opt their child out of the program. This was still going on in some schools as late as the 1960s.

The theory was that left-handedness is such a terrible disadvantage in life that the end justifies the means. Supporters of the theory cited the fact that pens in banks and government agencies were usually placed on the right for the convenience of customers and various applicants. There was also plenty of psychobabble about how and why left-handed people are more likely to suffer this or that mental condition or fail at this or that endeavor.

There was also a small and short-lived movement against using the term left-handed in a negative way, as in left-handed compliment. This movement also expressed dismay at the fact that antonyms for right were both left and wrong, which could psychologically damage left-handed people.