A different take - Page 4

JJ · #46 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 09:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong

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 · #47 (**permalink**) 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 · #48 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 11:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawetag

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 · #49 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 11:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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 · #50 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 01:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

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 · #51 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 05:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawetag

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 · #52 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 06:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Rich · #53 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 08:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron

Nerd.

Heh heh. It's the only reference I've made using my two math degrees in years. Glad someone appreciated it.

johnnyg08 · #54 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 01, 2010, 09:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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 · #55 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 02, 2010, 06:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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 · #56 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 02, 2010, 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron

Reminded me of the Hilbert Hotel...

Ah, a corner of my mind that I thought I had closed.

greymule · #57 (**permalink**) 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 · #58 (**permalink**) Sat Sep 04, 2010, 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

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?