Question on dropped thrid strike

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by greymule

I would apply "not by that act alone" to mistaken running after an uncaught third strike, to routine rounding of 1B after a fly ball is caught, to continuing to run toward 2B after a force out, and to other cases in which the runner can't be expected to disappear or stop dead. But I wouldn't interpret those words to mean that the runner has license to deliberately confuse the fielders.

Who would? A retired runner who does something besides continue around the next base obviously does not fall under "not by that act alone."

[greymule]

Who would? A retired runner who does something besides continue around the next base obviously does not fall under "not by that act alone."

I wouldn't. I'm just saying that getting into a rundown isn't "continuing to run the bases." A previous post named cited INT with a throw; I'm just saying it doesn't have to rise to that level.

[dash_riprock]

The only reason he's in a rundown is because the defense is playing on him. I'm not going to reward stupidity.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The only reason he's in a rundown is because the defense is playing on him. I'm not going to reward stupidity.

Whose stupidity are you not rewarding -- the retired batter's or the defense's? In the rundown situation, I'm giving the defense the benefit.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by yawetag

In the rundown situation, I'm giving the defense the benefit.

What did they do to deserve that? They made a play (or thought so) on a runner who was out and, by rule, not interfering. Also by rule, a run-down is an act of the defense. Think about it.

[greymule]

I think that by committing the overt act of decoying the defense (getting in a rundown), the "runner" is in fact interfering—by rule. He is doing more than committing the "act alone" of legitimately "continu[ing] to advance." He is intentionally attempting to confuse the fielders.

"Continues to advance" and "runs the bases" aren't necessarily the same thing.

If I have time today, I'll try to find something on this in the J/R or Evans or PBUC. I hope somebody beats me to it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

I think that by committing the overt act of decoying the defense (getting in a rundown)...

The defense created the run-down, not the runner.
See "PICKLE" in Section 2 (Definition of Terms).