![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
However, in this case, I wish I could find it. We have a number of other rules that prevent the defense from gaining advantages by technicalities, such as intentionally carrying the ball into dead ball territory to prevent further advancement by runners or to prevent them from completing their baserunning responsibilities. In that case, a one-base award becomes a two-base award. I sincerely doubt that I will ever encounter this kind of play in my lifetime. However, in this one singular instance, I do believe that the offense is not being held to the same, consistent standard to which the defense is also being held: an advantage should not be gained for an act that is contrary to the rules. Maybe ASA will correct it, or maybe it's intentional. Until then, some poor umpire is gonna have a hell of a time explaining to the defensive coach how a runner found a way to avoid being forced out without ever advancing to the base to which they were forced to advance.
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
|
|||
If the run does score in this case, that opens a whole new strategy for a squeeze play.
Bases loaded, 2 outs, squeeze for a guaranteed run, R1 running with the pitch. B4 puts ball in play. R2 and R3 run directectly to the ball and make contact. Absurd?........... Of course, but................. |
|
|||
Quote:
This kind of scenario is kind of a "perfect storm" that I doubt any of us are likely to see in our lifetime.
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
|
|||
It is INT on a fly ball that concerns me most. In my opinion, no runner should advance beyond TOP on INT on a fly ball.
Of course, the still unknown possibility that a run can count when INT (fly ball or not) prevents an obvious third out that otherwise would have nullified the run is also of concern. R1 on 3B, 1 out. Batter pops high to F3. R1 runs home, BR crashes F3 and is out for INT. That should be a double play for intentional INT to break up a double play, as it is in NCAA and OBR. If R1's run actually counts, then there's a huge hole in ASA rules. And if on the same play but with 2 outs, R1's run counts, then there's an even "huger" hole. Those high-level SP teams will hit a high pop every time so that the BR can run out and tackle the fielder. Run counts, guys. That's the rule. You lose, 46-45. Have a nice trip home. Bye! You better be armed. Apparently we don't know yet whether INT by a forced runner is considered a force out. If it's not, there's another hole.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide! |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts. |
|
|||
I'm having a difficult time seeing how allowing the run to score is penalizing the defense (or conversely, rewarding the offense) because of the INT-Out. The only way we get tougher with INT is when it's INT by someone who is already out or not in the game (ODB), then we get the runner closest to home. But even with that situation (ODB INT), we would be allowing the run to score and calling out the runner closest to home... how is that theory any different in the OP? Even after reading a very good debate on this here (well done, guys!), I'm still leaning toward a non-force situation in the OP.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts. |
|
|||
No, because the rule already has the BR covered if there are 2 outs. No runs score, since the rule does not require a force, only that the BR was out prior to reaching 1B.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Because it scores a run that otherwise would not score.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
Though I am advocating the rule as written be called as it is written, I agree in principle that there should be no advantage to the offense for violating a given rule. Which is why I've already laid to paper the first draft of a possible rule change to equally accommodate a runner in the same manner as it is now for the BR when it comes to the scoring a run on the 3rd out of an inning. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Dave I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views! Screw green, it ain't easy being blue! I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference? | scarolinablue | Baseball | 39 | Wed Mar 11, 2009 02:52pm |
Interference / Force Play Slide | tjones1 | Baseball | 25 | Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:25pm |
Force Out | rickbeauv | Softball | 22 | Tue Jun 24, 2003 04:04pm |
Force-slide play or just interference? | Gre144 | Baseball | 1 | Thu Mar 29, 2001 12:31am |
Force slide play and 2 outs or just interference and umpires judgement | Gre144 | Baseball | 5 | Mon Mar 26, 2001 07:57am |