Retired B/R continues to 2B

[Kevin Finnerty]

Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

[JR12]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

lol Kevin. Thats a qoute by our former president who often goofed up the English language.

[BretMan]

And, please, for the sake of the game, don't trot out the old "travesty of the game" argument anytime you see something on a baseball field that "just doesn't look right"!

In OBR, the odd phrase about "making a travesty of the game" appears in conjunction with one rule- the rule about a runner running the bases in reverse order. In FED it appears twice- once in the same rule about running the bases in reverse order and again in reference to making (guessing at) multiple appeals.

Those are the only times this phrase appears and those are the only situations where an umpire should make any sort of ruling based on "making a travesty of the game". Yet, time and time again, I see umpires trying to apply some imaginary "travesty rule" whenever they see something unusual, out of the ordinary or just plain different happen in one of their games.

"Making a travesty of the game" is an archaic sort of term, but it probably sounded right when this rule was first crafted in the early 1900's. The rule was first put in place to address the then-common practice of a baserunner already on second base "stealing" first base, hoping to draw a throw or confuse the defense enough to allow a runner on third the chance to score. Having a runner advance "the wrong way" was deemed counterproductive to the goals of the sport- indeed, even a travesty!- and this practice was outlawed. The interpretation was subsequently expanded to include a player who runs the bases "clockwise"- from home to third to second to first.

The so-called "travesty rule" isn't some blanket ruling that can be applied to any situation under the sun that looks odd or different to an umpire. It applies to one very specific rule infraction (in OBR, two in FED) that most of us will probably never see in one of our games.

[scarolinablue]

Thanks, UmpJM. That's the interp I needed.

And no, I didn't actually use the term "travesty of the game" with the OC, though I made it sound that way in my OP. It was more of the deliberate attempt to deceive.

Can't believe I brain-farted so badly on this one. Thanks for the proper admonishing and help. Lesson: don't make a rule where one doesn't exist...if it's not in the book, it must not be illegal.

I suppose I need to read my own signature line...

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Thanks, UmpJM. That's the interp I needed.

And no, I didn't actually use the term "travesty of the game" with the OC, though I made it sound that way in my OP. It was more of the deliberate attempt to deceive.

Can't believe I brain-farted so badly on this one. Thanks for the proper admonishing and help. Lesson: don't make a rule where one doesn't exist...if it's not in the book, it must not be illegal.

I suppose I need to read my own signature line...

Good idea (read your own signature line)

Now, go get a beer and sit in the corner and contemplate what you did wrong. Consume as much beer as it takes to either understand your mistake or fall over.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Good idea (read your own signature line)

Now, go get a beer and sit in the corner and contemplate what you did wrong. Consume as much beer as it takes to either understand your mistake or fall over.

Mmmmm, beer. What were we talking about again?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Thanks, UmpJM. That's the interp I needed.

And no, I didn't actually use the term "travesty of the game" with the OC, though I made it sound that way in my OP. It was more of the deliberate attempt to deceive.

Can't believe I brain-farted so badly on this one. Thanks for the proper admonishing and help. Lesson: don't make a rule where one doesn't exist...if it's not in the book, it must not be illegal.

I suppose I need to read my own signature line...

Look at it this way. If the ball is caught or dropped, you're still getting an out regardless. Sounds like a win win situation to me.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BretMan

And, please, for the sake of the game, don't trot out the old "travesty of the game" argument anytime you see something on a baseball field that "just doesn't look right"!

In other words, don't make a travesty of the game by trotting out the old "travesty of the game" argument.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

In other words, don't make a travesty of the game by trotting out the old "travesty of the game" argument.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Mmmmmmm, beer...think I'll have a few tonight (after my game, of course)...I'm thinking Franziskaner on tap.

[greymule]

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a rather lengthy post on this exact subject recently

Yes, there was a thread on this. I'll post the link if I can find it. It was shown by case play that in Fed a retired runner can deliberately continue to run in an attempt to confuse the defense. The situation in OBR was not fully clear. Though simply continuing to run does not ipso facto constitute a violation, even if the defense is drawn into making a play, there was evidence in the BRD that deliberately getting into a rundown did not fall into that category.

In other words, in OBR, continuing to run is not necessarily a violation, but that doesn't give a retired runner carte blanche.

Found it: Question on dropped thrid strike