Inattentive Runner - Collision

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If Sven's game was OBR then the umpires WERE correct.

No they weren't. They might have reached the correct conclusion (and I'm not sure of that, either), but they used incorrect reasoning.

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out." That seems to imply that the standard for calling a double play is whether a DP would have been completed without the INT. That's not correct in any code.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No they weren't. They might have reached the correct conclusion (and I'm not sure of that, either), but they used incorrect reasoning.

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out." That seems to imply that the standard for calling a double play is whether a DP would have been completed without the INT. That's not correct in any code.

Semantics?

"It cannot be assumed . . " is true in OBR. Assumption has nothing to do with it. You must judge willful & deliberate intent to call a DP. Judging the oblivious runner as having intent would be a MAJOR stretch.

In FED you CAN assume a DP eould have happened and call it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Semantics?

"It cannot be assumed . . " is true in OBR. Assumption has nothing to do with it. You must judge willful & deliberate intent to call a DP. Judging the oblivious runner as having intent would be a MAJOR stretch.

In FED you CAN assume a DP eould have happened and call it.

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote: "Assumption has nothing to do with it."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote: "Assumption has nothing to do with it."

I read it. You contradicted yourself, writing first that the umpires were correct (to assume) and then stating that assumption has nothing to do with it.

I chose to focus on fixing the half that struck me as incorrect, and also pointed out that we mainly agree.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed

Agreed. The quote is something that scorers use, not umpires.