Rule Questions

[Triad]

I agree with you. They should either make the call at the time, or not call it at all. Otherwise, the baserunners have to guess whether they think the umpire is going to call it, and that runs into all sorts of problems.

I may be mixing Little League rules in here. In Little League, the umpire isn't compelled to determine infield fly while the play is going on, but is encouraged to do so.

But if they don't, it's a headache for the runners and coaches. If they guess yes and stay on their base, then the ball is dropped and they get put out at the next base, how were they supposed to figure that out? Or if they guess no and run on a dropped ball, and then get tagged out at the next base, that's not really their fault either. It seems like a bogus rule. Maybe the major league version is more sensible.

[jtur88]

The IFR should be abolished entirely. It's a ball in play, make the offense and defense execute out the play on its own merit. I'm not convinced that it would yield an inordinate number of double plays, none would be 'automatic', and there are 2 or 3 DPs per game anyway, which the offense is virtually helpless to evade once the ball is hit. It is the only exception to the rule that retiring an offensive player must be executed, except for illegal action.

If you absolutely MUST have an IFR, let the ump declare it a foul ball. If it is caught, it is an out, and if it is not caught, it is a foul ball. Declaring it foul requires no more bending of the fundamental precepts than declaring it an automatic out.

[Triad]

Good points. I don't think the IFR adds anything substantial to the game, and it often rewards a team that didn't earn anything. Yet another example of rulesmakers (aka armchair lawyers) getting their hands in things and mucking it all up.

[jtur88]

For the Dogers Saturday night. Kemp is on first. Ethier hits a long fly to center, and Kemp thinks the ball might be caught. Ethier reaches first, and crosses the bag, but does not turn toward second, but runs down the foul line. After Ethier touches first, Kemp comes back to tag up and steps on first. At the moment Kemp's foot is on the bag retouching, is Ethier past him on the base paths, even though Kemp has not turned toward second? Once the ball is not caught, Ethier has reached first safely.

(They only showed the replay once---I think Kemp touched the bag, but he might not have. If he did, is Ethier out for being past him on the base path?)

In short, if a runner retouches a base that a following runner has already touched, and the following runner is not retreating or cannot retreat to a previous base, is that "passing a runner"?

Ned Yost came out and talked to the umpire, and may have been asking for Ethier to be called out, but did not make his case very forcefullly. Again, I'm not sure if Kemp actually retouched first.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

In short, if a runner retouches a base that a following runner has already touched, and the following runner is not retreating or cannot retreat to a previous base, is that "passing a runner"?

Ned Yost came out and talked to the umpire, and may have been asking for Ethier to be called out, but did not make his case very forcefullly. Again, I'm not sure if Kemp actually retouched first.

My understanding is that two runners can be touching the base at the same time. I've seen plays in the majors where two players were not called out for both being on the base at a given moment.

Also, Ethier passed the bag, but he didn't pass Kemp. Ethier ran past first, but came no closer to second. Just my opinion. Don't know if the umps would look at it the same way if it occurred at second or third.

Most fly balls would be caught before the batter reaches first base, but there would be some exceptions. In most of those cases, it would be a moot point because the batter would be out before he even touched first.

Ethier should've been closer to second base when the ball came down, then he would have made it to third, and possibly scored on the next fly ball by Kent. If you're not fairly certain the outfielder is going to catch it, you shouldn't be going back to tag up from first.

[jtur88]

Kemp was touching first, and Ethier had already passed first. By one school of thought, Etheir was past Kemp, even though they were not both in the baseline. By another school, the provision that a batter-runner can over-run first base without jeopardy implies that he has not proceeded beyond first base. Unless, of course, Ethier then turned toward second, in which case, his overrunning of the bag constituted an effort to proceed to second, in which case, he was further along than Kemp, who was still touching first.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Kemp was touching first, and Ethier had already passed first. By one school of thought, Etheir was past Kemp, even though they were not both in the baseline. By another school, the provision that a batter-runner can over-run first base without jeopardy implies that he has not proceeded beyond first base. Unless, of course, Ethier then turned toward second, in which case, his overrunning of the bag constituted an effort to proceed to second, in which case, he was further along than Kemp, who was still touching first.

What if Kemp was ten feet off the base, and then Ethier rounded the base and went nine feet from the foul line, further toward the outfield? Essentially, Ethier would not have passed Kemp yet. That seems to be the same as what really happened. I'd say passing a base in a direction that takes you no closer to the next base is not really going past the base in the literal sense.

I guess the rule does have some utility, in that it keeps the defense from getting too confused. I think the rule should be revised to allow for incidental passing that is immediately remedied, as long as a play isn't being made on either player at the time. In other words, if a fielder who is throwing to that base area on his own (without a subsequent relay) is in the process of making a throw, then that would be making a play. The rule seems too stringent to me.

[jtur88]

I agree. I ghink EVERY rule should be revised in such a way as to achieve its practical objective in the play of the game.

Case in point: Pitcher going to his mouth. Purpose of the rule: To allow time for the pitching hand to dry off if the pitcher loads it up with spit while olf the dirt part of the mound. Practical change: If the pitcher goes to his mouth while on the dirt, the umpire shall call time and direct the pitcher to step off the dirt before returning to the mound. Problem solved, and undeserved draconian penalty sidestepped. Procedural penalties are for lowly football. We should not be degrading our gamr.

Another case: If a manager wants to double switch, he cannot make any gesture at all to that effect until he has notified the umpire first of his intention. Purpose of rule: None that I can think of. Proposed change: Manager shall call time when he comes out of the dugout. With time called, it could not possibly make any difference whatsoever how he choreographed his audience with the Holy Umpire, whom the spectatos have paid good money to watch in actiln. This would achieve the uniform objective of all new baseball rules---speed up the game (so the crotchety media coverage can get to the post-game bar) by giving the pitcher a 5-second head start in leaving the bullpen.