Calling it specious doesn't make it so. It is clearly a tactic intended to delay the game, and it is illegal. If I so instruct the coach and he continues, he will suffer the consequences. Like I've said now 3 times in this thread... you do what you want in your game. You can play a practice scrimmage if you want, I don't care.

The fed association I belong to has the rules interpreter for Maryland as its commissioner. I will ask him about how he would rule on it. Better yet, I will email the play to him.

Ron

The sentence is almost unbelievable.

You say, "you gotta let at least one instance occur," correct?

Tom has already stated that (instance 1) the coach attempted to decline the base award, (instance 2) when that failed, attempted to send a runner to the dugout. BOTH INSTANCES are attempts to DELAY the ending of the game. So, his ruling even meets your standard, yet you continue to argue with him that the "win/or forfeit" judgement he has stated is wrong.

:eek:

Couple of points on the OP situation.

1) The ball was dead due to the overthrow (and also the coach / umpire conference). The runner cannot be declared out for entering the dugout during a dead ball.

2) The coach ordering his runner into the dugout is pulling his player off the field. If he refuses to put her back on the field, he is refusing to resume the game.

Take your choice on the reason for the forfeit option: 4-3-1 b,c,d.

I truly don't understand the rationale of wanting to allow the coach to use some ruse to continue a game that is, by rule, completed.

In Maryland, the rules interpreter will support a forfeit but not by 4-3-1d.

Ron:

This situation could legitimately become a forfeit situation. Any coach who tells his players to violate a rule to extend a game is making a travesty of the game. One could easily argue that this isn't specifically addressed by the rules but rule 10 gives the plate umpire the authority to enforce any penalty he/she considers appropriate. As Interpreter, I would support such a decision.

OK..by your interpretor's rationale, the 2nd situation I gave in another post on this thread constitutes a travesty of the game?? He is telling his player to violate a rule to extend a game.

As much as I hate what the coach is doing, in my opinion he appears to be within his rights to take the out however he can "legally" get it. Having his player not touch the bases appears to be within his rights.

Still don't buy it. Agree to disagree

You dont need rule 10 when it is addressed in the rules. People love to fall back on rule 10 for everything...

In any case, your interpreter has the proper result even if he/she took the wrong road to get there.