Trembley Suspended

[Skeletor]

We're just not reading this the same way. I'm taking a break.

[ledzepp8]

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.

I know we're talking about an outfielder and I know it depends on where the runners are when the throw is made. The part you keep quoting is in regards to the 1st approved ruling, which was in regards to what happens when the throw is made by an infielder. That is why that phrase only appears in that approved ruling and what you quoted.

Therefore the whole passage is irrelevant to the situation because an outfielder made the throw and not an infielder.

[Skeletor]

I know we're talking about an outfielder and I know it depends on where the runners are when the throw is made. The part you keep quoting is in regards to the 1st approved ruling, which was in regards to what happens when the throw is made by an infielder. That is why that phrase only appears in that approved ruling and what you quoted.

Therefore the whole passage is irrelevant to the situation because an outfielder made the throw and not an infielder.

it is in regards to the rule 7.05 (g). Not the first approved ruling.

[RShack]

It's clear that nobody knows the rule.

Lots of people know the rule. The fact that some folks here are reading it wrong doesn't change that.

What matters for where Reimold ends up is where he was when the OF'er threw the ball. There are three possibilities:

• If he touched 2B already, then it doesn't matter whether Luke rounded first, Nolan scores.
• If Nolan had not touched 2B and if Luke had not already touched 1B, then Nolan gets 3B and Luke gets 2B. They both get 2 bases, just like the normal rules says.
• If Nolan had not touched 2B and if Luke had already rounded 1B, then the special case applies because we have 2 guys who have left 1B but who have not arrived at 2B. You can't give 3B to both of them. Because Nolan gets 3B, that deprives Luke of it, so Luke gets 2B. This is the weird special case when not everybody gets 2 bases..

The only thing the special case does is that it deprives Luke of 3B if-and-only-if both Nolan and Luke were between 1B and 2B when the OF'er threw the ball. The reason it deprives Luke of 3B is because Nolan gets 3B, so Luke can't have it.

The sentence that people are jumping to wrong conclusions about is the one that comes immediately after they explain how Luke might get gypped out of a base if Nolan is clogging things up in front of him. It's explaining when Luke can and cannot get gypped out of a 2-base advance. What it's saying is that the big exception to the 2-base advance is *if* the batter rounded 1B *and if* the runner from 1B had not touched 2B yet. That's the situation in which not everybody gets 2 bases: the batter only gets 1 base, not 2, because the runner in front of him is clogging things up. That is the only exception to the 2-base advance that's being addressed here. The special case affects nobody except the batter, and it only affects him if he's got a baserunner clogging things up in front of him, which can only happen after the batter rounds 1B. If he hasn't rounded 1B, then he can't get gypped out of his 2B advance even if Nolan hasn't gotten to 2B yet. But if Nolan has gotten to 2B, then none of this weird special case stuff matters and nobody's even thinking about it.

[ledzepp8]

it is in regards to the rule 7.05 (g). Not the first approved ruling.

The first approved ruling of 7.05 (g). If you can see that phrase about the wild throw in that first approved ruling and see it nowhere else, except for the part you're quoting, and still think it applies to the whole rule, then I don't know what else to say.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The special case affects nobody except the batter, and it only affects him if he's got a baserunner clogging things up in front of him.

You may be right, but the special rule definitely says the position of the batter-runner affects the placement of all runners.

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.

[Skeletor]

The first approved ruling of 7.05 (g). If you can see that phrase about the wild throw in that first approved ruling and see it nowhere else, except for the part you're quoting, and still think it applies to the whole rule, then I don't know what else to say.

They're two separate sentences. Two separate paragraphs even.

RShack,

if in the special case, Luke gets second regardless of if he's touched the bag or not, why would they even care about whether he had touched first base? Where is the judgement call when it doesn't matter in this case? I don't think it could be any clearer that statement isn't referring to the special case when whether or not the batter has touched first base is irrelevant. He's not getting third because of the runner.

[RShack]

OK, I really, really give up this time. Really ;-)

[olehippi]

Anyone remember these old baseball rules:

(1) Throw the ball.

(2) Hit the ball.

(3) Catch the ball.

(4) Have fun.

[ledzepp8]

They're two separate sentences. Two separate paragraphs even.

So you honestly think that they would use and quote a phrase that had only been used once before in the entire rule (the first approved ruling of 7.05 (g)) but that it has nothing to do with clarifying what they meant with that phrase in the previous approved ruling and instead is addressing the entire rule?

That makes no sense because fore starters if they meant it the way you say they did then it would have been at the beginning of the rule. And last ther is no way they would have a rule that could be so easily manipulated by, like Gordo said, the outfielder just chucking the ball away.

Separate sentences and paragraphss but not separate thoughts.

[Skeletor]

So you honestly think that they would use and quote a phrase that had only been used once before in the entire rule (the first approved ruling of 7.05 (g)) but that it has nothing to do with clarifying what they meant with that phrase in the previous approved ruling and instead is addressing the entire rule?

That makes no sense because fore starters if they meant it the way you say they did then it would have been at the beginning of the rule. And last ther is no way they would have a rule that could be so easily manipulated by, like Gordo said, the outfielder just chucking the ball away.

Separate sentences and paragraphss but not separate thoughts.

I don't know and I don't care anymore.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I don't know and I don't care anymore.

I think Henry Fonda reached a similar low point in 12 Angry Men. He rallied, though.

[SteveA]

So it's Jauss vs Butterworth the next two nights, matching wits. Who'da thunk it.

And Berken/Bergeson vs Cecil/Romero.

A year ago today, 99% of baseball fans had never heard of the managers and starting pitchers we will see the the next two nights.

[PaulFolk]

So it's Jauss vs Butterworth the next two nights, matching wits. Who'da thunk it.

And Berken/Bergeson vs Cecil/Romero.

A year ago today, 99% of baseball fans had never heard of the managers and starting pitchers we will see the the next two nights.

What happened to Gaston?

BTW, Bergesen starts Sunday instead of Saturday. Hill will start Saturday.

[SteveA]

What happened to Gaston?

BTW, Bergesen starts Sunday instead of Saturday. Hill will start Saturday.

His sister passed away. He will miss tonight and tomorrow for her funeral, will be back Sunday.