The Official Forum
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   A different take (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/58950-different-take.html)

JJ Wed Sep 01, 2010 09:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 690780)
The NCAA rulebook has the similar wording, but in reviewing the 2009 Study Guide for NCAA that is put out by Referee magazine they have this rule interpreted as a base coach or another runner physically assisting him being grounds for an out. An e-mail has been sent for clarification since there is no interp citation of either a NCAA rules person nor a cite that it comes from MLB.
Will post (or JJ will) when an answer comes in. This is interesting since according to the study guide another base runner cannot physically assist while on the base paths. Hopefully this is not the authors own interp and we can track down the origin. Otherwise we are still where we are now........ Its unusual that an interp in this book is not cited by either a NCAA person or MLB.


Jim Paronto (NCAA) and Kyle McNeely (FED) both came back in agreement with the MLB call of out. Since the runner who scored is no longer considered a runner and he clearly assisted a runner who was making no attempt to return home, the runner is out for assistance.

JJ

bob jenkins Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:50am
While I think that's the "right" ruling, I hope they change / clarify the rule next year to match.

MD Longhorn Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yawetag (Post 690868)
Care to explain how a leading runner is going to carry the trailing runner without having the trailing runner pass her? I hesitate to think the runner could carry her for 180 feet while walking backwards.
Completely means COMPLETELY. No overlap. I can't imagine a method of carrying someone where there would be no overlap.

David B Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 690888)
While I think that's the "right" ruling, I hope they change / clarify the rule next year to match.
I agree with that. It makes sense that is the "right" ruling, but you have a hard time finding that anywhere in the rulebooks.

Thanks
David

Rich Wed Sep 01, 2010 01:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David B (Post 690897)
I agree with that. It makes sense that is the "right" ruling, but you have a hard time finding that anywhere in the rulebooks.

Thanks
David
Regardless, if this was called and I was serving on the protest committee, I'd quickly deny the protest. Baseball has a finite set of rules that cover a countably infinite set of circumstances.

KJUmp Wed Sep 01, 2010 05:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yawetag (Post 690868)
Care to explain how a leading runner is going to carry the trailing runner without having the trailing runner pass her? I hesitate to think the runner could carry her for 180 feet while walking backwards.
NCAA (Softball) 12.9.3 states that she is out:"When she physically passes (that is completly overtakes) a preceeding runner....."

mbyron Wed Sep 01, 2010 06:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 690905)
Regardless, if this was called and I was serving on the protest committee, I'd quickly deny the protest. Baseball has a finite set of rules that cover a countably infinite set of circumstances.
Nerd. :D

Rich Wed Sep 01, 2010 08:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 690925)
Nerd. :D
Heh heh. It's the only reference I've made using my two math degrees in years. Glad someone appreciated it.

johnnyg08 Wed Sep 01, 2010 09:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 690896)
Completely means COMPLETELY. No overlap. I can't imagine a method of carrying someone where there would be no overlap.
That might be, but if I "F" up the rule that bad where I'd even make a team carry somebody around the bases, I'm certainly not going to Smitty it up and wait for an elbow to pass the person they're carrying to "Ring 'em up" on a technicality like that.

mbyron Thu Sep 02, 2010 06:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 690942)
Heh heh. It's the only reference I've made using my two math degrees in years. Glad someone appreciated it.
Reminded me of the Hilbert Hotel...

Rich Thu Sep 02, 2010 08:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 690969)
Reminded me of the Hilbert Hotel...
Ah, a corner of my mind that I thought I had closed.

greymule Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:14pm
Nerd has been in common use for a long time now; it seemed to replace nebbish at some point. It's a bit strange to me that geek, given its original meaning, has today gained currency (is it Best Buy that advertises its "Geek Squad"?).

In Nightmare Alley (1947), the circus manager tells a down-and-out Tyrone Power, "OK, you can have the job . . . until we can find a real geek."

Publius Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ (Post 690885)
Jim Paronto (NCAA) and Kyle McNeely (FED) both came back in agreement with the MLB call of out. Since the runner who scored is no longer considered a runner and he clearly assisted a runner who was making no attempt to return home, the runner is out for assistance.

JJ
They quoted the same rule Hernandez did, didn't they?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18pm.
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1