The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 11, 2003, 09:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Question 80 derives directly from 2002 case play situation #13 published last year on Fed's web site. The ruling caused a lot of debate here, not because it said that a runner who is hit by a batted ball is out, but because, by saying "with the shortstop . . . in position to make a catch," it implied that if the fielder were not in a position to make a play, the runner would not be out. In fact, the rest of the ruling said, "If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball."

In other words, an undeflected ball, without passing a fielder, hits a runner, and the runner is not out! This seemed a blithe contradiction to a rule that everybody knows. I don't know that we ever resolved the controversy.

The thread is on this site: I began it on March 5, 2002, and it is entitled "NFHS Situation 13."

[Edited by greymule on Mar 11th, 2003 at 09:04 AM]
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1