[quote]1. However, the written ruling from PBUC DOES exist, has been published, and has not been recinded.
I can't get away from the two cases stating right there in black and white, "UNABLE TO" and "CAN NOT".
My theory is: this (injured) scenario came up, somebody asked somebody what they thought the ruling should be.
Somebody had a thought on it and ruled on it.
Even went as far as to publish it.
If it's written "read it", it says the BR "can't".
Nothing about, didn't, wouldn't, hits the ball too hard, and runs to slow, has a knuckle head of a base runningn team mate.
Why put words in there, like: must, has to, that aren't?
From NCAA: (I don't have this book, I am taking it from the above post, I assume it's accurate).
4/18/01 8-6-a, b
PLAY: Two outs, runners on second base and third base. The batter singles to the outfield, but injures himself coming out of the box and "cannot continue" to first base. R3 scores easily. R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. The catcher then throws to first base for a fourth out on the batter-runner.
RULING: This would be considered a live ball appeal. The out at first base would be considered an advantageous out for the defense and the very fact that they made the play would indicate their choice of this fourth out. Since the batter-runner was out on a force out at first base, R2’s run would not count."
From J/R:
Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs. The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is "unable" to advance to first prompting the defense to throw to first against him: this is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score.
What does:
FED say?
PBUC:
Quote please.
quote:Originally posted by jjk:
[quote]1. However, the written ruling from PBUC DOES exist, has been published, and has not been recinded.
I can't get away from the two cases stating right there in black and white, "UNABLE TO" and "CAN NOT".
My theory is: this (injured) scenario came up, somebody asked somebody what they thought the ruling should be.
Somebody had a thought on it and ruled on it.
Even went as far as to publish it.
If it's written "read it", it says the BR "can't".
Nothing about, didn't, wouldn't, hits the ball too hard, and runs to slow, has a knuckle head of a base runningn team mate.
Why put words in there, like: must, has to, that aren't?
From NCAA: (I don't have this book, I am taking it from the above post, I assume it's accurate).
4/18/01 8-6-a, b
PLAY: Two outs, runners on second base and third base. The batter singles to the outfield, but injures himself coming out of the box and "cannot continue" to first base. R3 scores easily. R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. The catcher then throws to first base for a fourth out on the batter-runner.
RULING: This would be considered a live ball appeal. The out at first base would be considered an advantageous out for the defense and the very fact that they made the play would indicate their choice of this fourth out. Since the batter-runner was out on a force out at first base, R2’s run would not count."
From J/R:
Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs. The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is "unable" to advance to first prompting the defense to throw to first against him: this is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score.
What does:
FED say?
PBUC:
Quote please.
I am at a conference and will be until Monday. I have just the files on my lap top with me.
For both Elliot's and Fitzy's rulings check your BRD, Section three, I, believe.
You might also look at a similar play and ruling in J/R, somewhere near 6(A) I believe.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jjk:
I can't get away from the two cases stating right there in black and white, "UNABLE TO" and "CAN NOT". /QUOTE]
jjk,
There are reasons to think that these rulings are intended to cover situations besides those where B/R is injured.
1. In general, the rules of baseball don't try to compensate for injuries. For example, if F8 trips on a sprinkler head, sprains his ankle and can't quite get to a high fly that he would normally reach easily, we don't cede him an out. Similarly, we don't concern ourselves with why a runner arrives late to the base.
2. If the rulings were intended to only apply to an injured B/R, why would the offense be held to a higher standard of baserunning than if B/R were healthy? The way you are interpreting the example can be paraphrased as: "If B/R is able to run to first, then he doesn't need to. But if he is unable to run to first, then he needs to do so to avoid the appeal." When phrased that way, doesn't it seem a little ridiculous?
3. Most examples and case plays have detail which allows the reader to imagine how a situation might arise. Otherwise, many situations would seem like third world plays. Indeed, authorities resist making rulings on seemingly improbable situations. Typically the detail is unimportant to the principle of the ruling.
Look, I don't like the rulings. But the rulings have a plausible basis. The root cause of the controversy stems from the silence of the rules on what it means to "miss a base", on "desertion" (as termed by J/R), and on whether bases may be run following a third out. Furthermore, the near parallel nature of the advancement of B/R to first base in comparison to any other runner's advance to a force base creates additional ambiguity.
That's how we end up with rulings which seem contrary to an obvious reading of the rule.
I can't get away from the two cases stating right there in black and white, "UNABLE TO" and "CAN NOT". /QUOTE]
jjk,
There are reasons to think that these rulings are intended to cover situations besides those where B/R is injured.
1. In general, the rules of baseball don't try to compensate for injuries. For example, if F8 trips on a sprinkler head, sprains his ankle and can't quite get to a high fly that he would normally reach easily, we don't cede him an out. Similarly, we don't concern ourselves with why a runner arrives late to the base.
2. If the rulings were intended to only apply to an injured B/R, why would the offense be held to a higher standard of baserunning than if B/R were healthy? The way you are interpreting the example can be paraphrased as: "If B/R is able to run to first, then he doesn't need to. But if he is unable to run to first, then he needs to do so to avoid the appeal." When phrased that way, doesn't it seem a little ridiculous?
3. Most examples and case plays have detail which allows the reader to imagine how a situation might arise. Otherwise, many situations would seem like third world plays. Indeed, authorities resist making rulings on seemingly improbable situations. Typically the detail is unimportant to the principle of the ruling.
Look, I don't like the rulings. But the rulings have a plausible basis. The root cause of the controversy stems from the silence of the rules on what it means to "miss a base", on "desertion" (as termed by J/R), and on whether bases may be run following a third out. Furthermore, the near parallel nature of the advancement of B/R to first base in comparison to any other runner's advance to a force base creates additional ambiguity.
That's how we end up with rulings which seem contrary to an obvious reading of the rule.
Jimmy, the point is, outside of the BRD, those interpretations have not been published anywhere else by PBUC and that is not even an official PBUC publication.
quote:Originally posted by Welpe:
Jimmy, the point is, outside of the BRD, those interpretations have not been published anywhere else by PBUC and that is not even an official PBUC publication.
1. The act of sending the ruling out is "publishing" it. Childress was not the only party to receive the ruling.
2. Fitzy specifically sent the ruling to Childress to be included in his publication, BRD.
3. Although the PBUC manual was never updated, it is not an all inclusive collection of rulings. In fact, many new rulings are only dispersed by memo or letter. Some are revealed at pre-season meetings.
This occurs at both the MiLB level and the MLB level. Prior to the advent of the internet and the popularity of pro training for amateurs, we seldom heard of some of these rulings and worked in ignorant bliss.
Ah....those were the days.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE
While a fourth out is rare it nearly occurred in a Major League Baseball game in 1980, had the defense made an appeal. Umpire Ron Luciano was officiating a major league game.
The Play, as recounted by Luciano in one of his books, involved a situation with runners on first base and third base, a batter at the plate, and one out. The batter hit a drive to the outfield which looked like it would drop in for a hit. The runners at first and third ran for the next base, with the runner from third touching home plate. The ball, however, was caught in the outfield for out # 2, and then thrown to first base to catch the runner off base for out # 3. If the inning was over, the run had scored. This, however, created a problem, as the runner on third base had not properly tagged up. The team in the field, seeing there were three outs, did not appeal the scoring of the run by challenging whether the runner from third had tagged up. Therefore, the umpires considered the run to have scored. Luciano stated in his book that he would have called a fourth out on the play if there had been a challenge at third base.
While a fourth out is rare it nearly occurred in a Major League Baseball game in 1980, had the defense made an appeal. Umpire Ron Luciano was officiating a major league game.
The Play, as recounted by Luciano in one of his books, involved a situation with runners on first base and third base, a batter at the plate, and one out. The batter hit a drive to the outfield which looked like it would drop in for a hit. The runners at first and third ran for the next base, with the runner from third touching home plate. The ball, however, was caught in the outfield for out # 2, and then thrown to first base to catch the runner off base for out # 3. If the inning was over, the run had scored. This, however, created a problem, as the runner on third base had not properly tagged up. The team in the field, seeing there were three outs, did not appeal the scoring of the run by challenging whether the runner from third had tagged up. Therefore, the umpires considered the run to have scored. Luciano stated in his book that he would have called a fourth out on the play if there had been a challenge at third base.