Trembley Suspended

[Skeletor]

This sentence right here and the use of quotation marks tell us that it is referring to the rule itself and NOT the special case:

The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.

This term isn't used in the special case. It is clarifying a part of the rule. Just like the statement after that.

[El Gordo]

It doesn't even make sense if you read it as the approved ruling for the example given. The approved ruling clearly specifies what bases the runner and batter are entitled to. They get second and third. The following sentences have nothing to do with this special case and are referring back to the rule as independent comments.

"The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call"

would seem to contradict this ruling:

Example:

Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

APPROVED RULING:

Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

In this case the batter runner has indeed reached 1B but is only awarded 2B as if the advance were interpreted to be from the time the pitch was made.

[JimDH]

yep. Good thing Baseball rules are uncomplicated and unambiguous.

Anyway. I hear Trembley got suspended.

[Skeletor]

"The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call"

would seem to contradict this ruling:

Example:

Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

APPROVED RULING:

Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

In this case the batter runner has indeed reached 1B but is only awarded 2B as if the advance were interpreted to be from the time the pitch was made.

That's the whole reason it was listed as a special case and the approved ruling was listed. And, I would think it lends some validity that the first comment you quoted was an independent thought and not part of the approved ruling.

[ccbird]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

Ok now after looking at the rule on the MLB website I'm back to thinking the rule only applies to the certain circumstance outlined in the book. If you notice the part where the certain circumstance is mentioned it is italicized along with the approved ruling which includes the follwing which is the key to all of this.

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

It either applies to the main part of 7.05 g and Russ is right or it is applying to the certain circumstance and Shack is right. The fact that it is italicized and is part of the Approved Ruling which is right below the special circumstance which is also italicized leads me to believe it isn't part of the main rule. If it was part of the main Rule 7.05 g it wouldn't be italicized. Notice the Approved Ruling directely above the Comment about the special circumstance isn't italicized.

I told you I was wishy washy. Shack, Im back on board. :laughlol:

[ledzepp8]

OK, but you were saying that Russ's bolded part only applied to the special case. But now you're saying that the definition, which is right next to the bolded part, doesn't apply to that special case. That's exactly what makes me think that the 7.05(g) comments don't apply only the the special case, and apply to the entire 7.05(g) rule.

I agree after reading the rule a little closer. Either the bolded applies to the second approved ruling (I don't think it does now) or it applies to the first approved ruling which uses the same phrase (I think it does). Either way it doesn't apply to the rule as a whole.

[Skeletor]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

Ok now after looking at the rule on the MLB website I'm back to thinking the rule only applies to the certain circumstance outlined in the book. If you notice the part where the certain circumstance is mentioned it is italicized along with the approved ruling which includes the follwing which is the key to all of this.

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

that makes no sense after the special case was given and the position of both the batter and runner are clearly defined. What point is there in where the batter-runner is in the special case? He gets second and the runner gets third. If he's not at the bag, he still gets second. Now, if the runner had passed second and the batter had past first when the throw was made, the runner would score and the batter would be at third. Going back to this rule:

It either applies to the main part of 7.05 g and Russ is right or it is applying to the certain circumstance and Shack is right. The fact that it is italicized and is part of the Approved Ruling which is right below the special circumstance which is also italicized leads me to believe it isn't part of the main rule. If it was part of the main Rule 7.05 g it wouldn't be italicized. Notice the Approved Ruling directely above the Comment about the special circumstance isn't italicized.

I told you I was wishy washy. Shack, Im back on board. :laughlol:

that makes no sense after the special case was given and the position of both the batter and runner are clearly defined. What point is there in where the batter-runner is in the special case? He gets second and the runner gets third. If he's not at the bag, he still gets second. Now, if the runner had passed second and the batter had past first when the throw was made, the runner would score and the batter would be at third. Going back to this rule:

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Well, no matter what, I apologize to Jim Hunter for thinking he should know the rule.

[El Gordo]

that makes no sense after the special case was given and the position of both the batter and runner are clearly defined. What point is there in where the batter-runner is in the special case? He gets second and the runner gets third. If he's not at the bag, he still gets second. Now, if the runner had passed second and the batter had past first when the throw was made, the runner would score and the batter would be at third. Going back to this rule:

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

If this is the case then it would make sense for the OF to throw the ball into to stands to prevent a run from scoring in some cases. A fast runner takes off for 2B, ball is hit in the gap. OF cuts it off. He has the choice of making a throw to the plate or if the batter is slow throwing the ball into the stands and holding the runner to 3B. :mwahaha:

[ccbird]

that makes no sense after the special case was given and the position of both the batter and runner are clearly defined. What point is there in where the batter-runner is in the special case? He gets second and the runner gets third. If he's not at the bag, he still gets second. Now, if the runner had passed second and the batter had past first when the throw was made, the runner would score and the batter would be at third. Going back to this rule:

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

I don't understand why that approved rule would be italicized and directly below the certain circumstance which is also italicized. The other Approved Rule in 7.05 g isn't italicized. Honestly, my brain hurts at this point and I'm not focusing and thinking well right now. I will certainly come back to this soon and try to figure it all out again. As unimportant as it is, I hate being unsure and unclear about things like this. If you or anybody hear back from MLB make sure you let us know what they say.

[Skeletor]

If this is the case then it would make sense for the OF to throw the ball into to stands to prevent a run from scoring in some cases. A fast runner takes off for 2B, ball is hit in the gap. OF cuts it off. He has the choice of making a throw to the plate or if the batter is slow throwing the ball into the stands and holding the runner to 3B. :mwahaha:

I would think the batter would be to first if a ball is hit into that gap, even Matt Wieters. But that is a situation that could happen under the current rules. It's no different than the same situation and an automatic double that goes in the stands.

[El Gordo]

Well, no matter what, I apologize to Jim Hunter for thinking he should know the rule.

It's clear that nobody knows the rule. There ought to be sombody who does. One would assume that the MLB rules people would, but apparantly no one has bothered to ask them for an iterpretation yet. If I were a member of the press, I certainly would have contacted them 5 minutes after trying to read this :cussing::cussing: rule.

[Skeletor]

I found the PDF site. It's a little less confusing, but still open to interpretation I guess.

Click on the Runner section.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp

[ledzepp8]

I would think the batter would be to first if a ball is hit into that gap, even Matt Wieters. But that is a situation that could happen under the current rules. It's no different than the same situation and an automatic double that goes in the stands.

That wouldn't be the situation because you are applying an approved ruling to a particular comment to the entire rule. The part you bolded, which included the phrase "when the wild throw was made", was in regards to the first approved ruling of 7.05 g (where that phrase first appeared) which itself was in regards to an infielder making the wild throw.

[Skeletor]

That wouldn't be the situation because you are applying an approved ruling to a particular comment to the entire rule. The part you bolded, which included the phrase "when the wild throw was made", was in regards to the first approved ruling of 7.05 g (where that phrase first appeared) which itself was in regards to an infielder making the wild throw.

Okay. But we're talking about an outfielder throwing the ball. And it says in that case, it depends on where the runners are located when the ball was thrown. Which is further clarified by this:

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

I don't see how this is contradicted anywhere.