Baseball IQ of 160?

964 Views | 7 Replies | Last: 20 days ago by Proposition Joe
Rudyjax
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG



AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought there was a clause on the rule where intentionally touching the ball could then revert the call to umpire's judgement to place the runners and/or call runners out.

If not, this should be addressed. No big deal of the ball is smoked and hits a runner that can't get out of the way, but we don't need runners trying to field balls to disadvantage the defense.
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Earlier this year a college pitcher lost a no hitter on the last play of the game when the runner was hit with a batted ball. Apparently, the battery gets credited with a hit when the runner gets hit.
Brother Shamus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieEP said:

I thought there was a clause on the rule where intentionally touching the ball could then revert the call to umpire's judgement to place the runners and/or call runners out.

If not, this should be addressed. No big deal of the ball is smoked and hits a runner that can't get out of the way, but we don't need runners trying to field balls to disadvantage the defense.


You should just go ahead and take a seat in the cheap seats and silence yourself
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What are you talking about? Have a seat where?

I looked up this situation and the rule is already in place clearly giving the umpire the ability to rule both the runner and batter out if the interference is judged to be intentional.

For a runner to pull this off, he needs to convincingly try to avoid the ball, but still let it hit him. That would be the real high IQ play. The video in the OP shows a runner that got lucky that the umpires didn't know the full extent of the rules in that situation.
Seven Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brother Shamus said:

AggieEP said:

I thought there was a clause on the rule where intentionally touching the ball could then revert the call to umpire's judgement to place the runners and/or call runners out.

If not, this should be addressed. No big deal of the ball is smoked and hits a runner that can't get out of the way, but we don't need runners trying to field balls to disadvantage the defense.


You should just go ahead and take a seat in the cheap seats and silence yourself

What do you mean by this? Genuinely curious.
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm guessing he won't come back to this thread.

But perhaps he drank a bit too much and just misread my post? That's the only logical thing that comes to mind.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, actually a pretty dumb play at that level where a double play is rarely routine.

What he did should result in runner and batter being called out. Had let it play out, I'd say decent chance DP isn't turned and run scores.

It's not much different than a fielder intentionally dropping a line-drive/fly-ball in order to setup a force.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.