![]() |
|
|
|||
I think most of us (and the rule writers) have assumed "if the runner has scored, and there are already 3 outs, you can make an appeal on THAT runner to nullify HIS/HER run" as above.
Is this nearly TWP something the rule writers never expected? Logic says each non-trailing runner must be appealed separately, but 5.5.c literally says "no runs" if "fourth out", etc. Literal reading of a rule which is that specific takes precedence over logic or "something the rule writers never expected".
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. |
|
|||
I disagree. I can read this rule... "No run shall be scored if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left to soon on a runner who has scored. " and literally interpret this to mean what we think it means. It says no run shall be score if... It does not say no run could have scored earlier. I'm reading, in this case, the word "scored" to be equivalent to "credited". I don't have the book in front of me, but I wonder if the wording is similar in the case of the appeal simply being the third out...
Bases loaded, R1 and R2 leave early, R2 is appealed after R1 crosses the plate... how is this rule worded, as R1's run DOES score here.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
With whom? If with me, I said the logic would be what you said. But, often we have to apply a rule as written, sense or not.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be. |
|
|||
Quote:
No run is credited with a 4th out blah blah blah... I can read this to NOT mean that it wipes out previously scored runs.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
5.5.C. No run shall score if a "fourth" out is the result of ... How do you differentiate those in any meaningful way to get where you're trying to get? ________ TITS LIVE Last edited by youngump; Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:24pm. |
|
|||
I think that the confusion that youngump is experiencing is the strikingly similar language between 5-5-B and 5-5-C.
However, just like Mike, I maintain that the wording of the rule only pertains to the runner being appealed. It does not prevent R1 from scoring. Though that runner may also be appealed.
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
5.5.C.: No run (singular) shall be scored if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left to soon on a runner (singular) who has scored. Meaning, applying to THAT runner, not others. If it were meant to apply to all runs on the play, perhaps it would read: No runs shall score if a "fourth out" is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left too soon on any runner who has scored. |
|
|||
Quote:
If they had really meant that a BR thrown out at first should erase the run scored by a runner from third, they could have written: No runs shall be scored ... ________ Live sex Last edited by youngump; Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:24pm. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does this run score? | monfanz | Baseball | 6 | Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:17am |
O/T Score | ljudge | Football | 6 | Thu Nov 03, 2005 09:50am |
How many score? | bossman72 | Baseball | 2 | Fri May 20, 2005 10:09pm |
How do you score it? | bigdave622 | Softball | 8 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:59am |