![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Well there it is. Definitive proof on the Fed test. I did not know there was a difference from the IHSA test. So - with that I say the Fed (and I am assuming the IHSA) have also made the mistake of misinterpreting the rule for it's purpose and want us to call it their way. Which is what I will do since that is indeed the case. Still...I think they need to look closely at this...aside from the obvious...here's why... From the 2008 Baseball Rules By Topic, copyright 2007, NFHS. Page 123. 7.1.1 SITUATION D: With R1 on third and two outs, improper batter B5 appears at bat. During F1's wind-up, R1 breaks for home base and beats the pitch there, and is called safe by the umpire. The pitch is not strike three or ball four. The team on the field then realizes that B5 is an improper batter and calls it to the attention of the umpire. RULING: The proper batter shall take his place at the plate with B5's accumulated ball and strike count. The run scored by R1 counts. The activity of the improper batter B5 did not assist nor advance R1. The advance was made on merit. Of course, if the pitch to improper batter B5 had been strike three and the catcher either caught the ball or threw out B5 before he reached first base, then R1's run would not count. This is another case that clearly supports that the FED wants us to take the word 'during' literally and return the runner. But the ideology seems to be inconsistent. Why is merit not considered after ball 4 or strike 3? Because, I believe, the word 'during' is being taken too literally. I could make an argument that they are adding a penalty for BOO...but that is also inconsistent because runners are allowed to advance on merit on every other pitch. As for now though - it appears that I am wrong - in FED. So far my OBR research hasn't turned up anything to make it such, and the vote among contacts has been unanimous for 'the runner stays'. NCAA - not much yet but I am working on that too. My intent here is to clarify how the Fed, IHSA, NCAA, and OBR codes want us to rule. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Continuous action? | umpjim | Baseball | 29 | Sat Nov 07, 2009 08:25pm |
Continuous motion? | Scrapper1 | Basketball | 19 | Wed Oct 01, 2008 07:18pm |
"Continuous Action"? | Yeggman | Softball | 6 | Wed Dec 14, 2005 08:52am |
Continuous Motion | ronny mulkey | Basketball | 20 | Sun Dec 28, 2003 03:01pm |
continuous motion | Ralph Stubenthal | Basketball | 1 | Thu Nov 01, 2001 09:48pm |