What Am I Missing?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This whole thing is, as Mike says, a bit into TWP territory, but the ASA ruling is counter intuitive to the way the rule is written. The OC being given the choice of the IP being enforced (ball and runner advances) or the result of the play (runner out) is the more intuitive ruling. Couple that with the number of umpires who would not want to rule the runner out because it is "unfair", and I'd guess 9 out of 10 rank and file umpires would enforce the IP and not declare the runner out.

Actually, Tom, I think ASA's ruling is the fairest of them all.

Both teams committed a violation. Both teams are being held accountable.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, Tom, I think ASA's ruling is the fairest of them all.

Both teams committed a violation. Both teams are being held accountable.

Until some drooling so cal coaches catch on (probably from a thread like this) and figure out a way to bend it to their favor at nats.'

Trade an IP for an out?

Especially with 1 runner on, its a no brainer.

Lucky for us, most of them dont read.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Until some drooling so cal coaches catch on (probably from a thread like this) and figure out a way to bend it to their favor at nats.'

Trade an IP for an out?

Especially with 1 runner on, its a no brainer.

Lucky for us, most of them dont read.

Yet they still haven't figured out how to get their players a running start at 1B. Go figure.

Well, if they do trade the IP for an out, they will only do it once or lose the game if the umpire is on the ball.

[Snocatzdad]

Speaking from a coaches perspective

It's too obscure, I wouldn't chance it that the umpire would call it right. If judges can legislate from the bench, I'm guessing more Umpires than not would choose to penalize a coach who got cute trying to manipulate the rule.

As for the guy who said earlier that the offensive coaches would start sending their runners as soon as they see an IP if they changed the rule. I'll list below all the coaches that would be willing to risk a baserunner on the chance that an IP is an automatic call.

List starts ....



List ends ....

(don't ban me, I ump some games too!)

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

Speaking from a coaches perspective

It's too obscure, I wouldn't chance it that the umpire would call it right. If judges can legislate from the bench, I'm guessing more Umpires than not would choose to penalize a coach who got cute trying to manipulate the rule.

As for the guy who said earlier that the offensive coaches would start sending their runners as soon as they see an IP if they changed the rule. I'll list below all the coaches that would be willing to risk a baserunner on the chance that an IP is an automatic call.

List starts ....



List ends ....

(don't ban me, I ump some games too!)

Verty true! and thats why I specified "during nats".

There is a big chance that on your average weekend, you wouldnt get either call... the IP or the leaving early.. and if you did happen to get both called, they would probably get the rule wrong, afterwhich, you probably couldnt protest it anyway.

But during Nats you would probably get both calls and if it were ruled incorrectly, you could summon a National Staff UIC for an immediate protest and get the correct ruling.

Your point about penalizing a coach "getting cute" is well taken though, and very likely the actual bottom line to this.