From: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo)
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:49:32 GMT

Well, we've drifted a *long* way from the original scenario... :-)

lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:

>In article <Bv6yyy.69o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>>
>>>>You can't retouch something you haven't touched.
>>
>>>I think you're grasping at semantic straws here.  The baseball rulebook
>>>is notoriously badly written.  I claim that "retouch" here is used
>>>without the thought that the runner might have been stupid enough to
>>>have already missed the base once.  
>>
>>The rulebook does deal with a wide variety of stupid things the
>>players can do, including missing bases.  Why should we try and twist
>>what the rulebook says?  The rules were meant to be taken literally.
>>(Although, I agree that they could be written better.)

>It is y'all who are trying to twist the rules, claming that a "missed
>base" isn't a missed base until the next base is touched, with no
>evidence other than the "re" in "retouch."

Not exactly.  Let's try a variant on my admittedly odd hypothetical situation:

Runner on second breaks with the pitch.  Batter hits a high, shallow pop fly
down the left field line.  Runner misses third, rounds the base, then realizes
that the coach was frantically waving him back.  He turns, sees the fielder
apparently camped under the ball, and starts back to second, again not touching
third.  The ball eventually comes down -- but is deflected by a gust of wind
to fair ground and the fielder misses the ball.  The runner, now closer to
second than third (and knowing that the left fielder can get a throw off to
third faster than second), scampers back to second.  Meanwhile, the slug of
a batter-runner is perched contentedly at first.

(Alternately, the ball *is* caught, but the runner successfully retreats to
second before the left fielder throws to that base.)

What I am saying is that a ruling by the umpire denying an appeal at third
under 7.02 is credible and defensible.  It may not be the ruling which the
original rules committee intended on the play, but I would not be moved to
disband the league offices for upholding such a decision.

(I would, however, have to wonder if the umpire stated that the runner was
obliged to reverse again, do a little dance and step on third base *twice*
on his way back to second if he missed it both ways... :-) )

>The fact that the rules are badly written means that they must get
>interpreted according to tradition and good sense, as opposed to a strictly
>literal sense.  Even a quick perusual of the rulebook shows that
>it has evolved by a series of rule challages and clarifications.  If
>you wish to claim that your interpretation of a missed base is
>plausible enough for a protest, well maybe it is.  But to claim
>that it is a more reasonable interpretation than mine seems to
>me ludricrious.

Rules have not always been interpreted according to tradition and good sense;
more on that later.

Let's go back to the original situation: runner on first, goes on contact;
batter hits fly ball which is caught; runner is oblivious to catch and heads
to third; outfielder fires to second baseman, who steps on bag; second baseman
fires to third, where tag is applied; claim was made that the runner was
actually put out when the second baseman tagged second.

If you recall, this discussion began when someone dogmatically asserted that
the runner could not be called out at second because second was not a missed
base.  I asserted that the "missed base" claim was plausible, *not* that it
was the best interpretation.

>Lord, I feel like I'm arguing with the Mad Hatter.

Try Douglas Adams. :-)

>The baseball rules committee could never have meant the two letters "re"
>to carry that much weight.

Why not?  The sentence is semantically correct without the "re" imposed on
"retouch".  And, whether or not the "re" was *intended* to carry extra
weight, I remain unconvinced that a protest of the strict "retouch"
interpretation would be overturned by the arguement that such a ruling
violates the intent of the framers of the game.

Note also that rule 7.10 has a casebook example explaining the difference
between "retouch" in that rule and "retouch" elsewhere.  Since the rules
committee did not elect to simply rewrite 7.02 to remove the ambiguity, I
would say that the use of "retouch" vs. "touch" is intentional.

I think I've been hanging around a lawyer too long. :-)

> Y'all are claiming that those two letters mean
>that a runner can miss second, go almost to third, the miss second
>again and head back to first base without liabilty to be put out
>on appeal at second.

By a strict reading of the rules, yes.  In practice, I'd concede that a
runner who is not trying to get back to first (or second) at the time that
the ball arrives at second could be called out by the umpire under authority
granted by 9.01 (c), extending the rule regarding players who abandon efforts
to run the bases in the proper manner into this realm.

> If that were really the case they'd have
>gone on about it at length.  Gee, haven't you read how many words
>they write explaining batting order appeals?

I have.  Recall that such explanations come from the CASE BOOK, which was a
separate volume until 1977.  Much of the case book comes from -- you guessed
it -- actual *cases* which occured during play.

I take the length of explaination regarding batter order appeals as a
reflection on its rate of occurance at the time the rules were published,
rather than as a desire by the rules committee to delve in depth on a
potentially confusing issue.

The words "Approved Ruling" at the head of the batting order appeals section
also suggests to me that the plays contained therein are reconstructions of
actual plays (with the names changed to provide a common illustration base).

The fact that there is not a verbose section detailing "touch" and "retouch"
under 7.02 suggest to me that the application of the rule to date has not
sparked any appeals or calls for guidance by the umpire.

>You seem to be saying that baserunning proceedes point-to-point rather
>than in a directional basis.  Extending your arguments, a runner
>could run to second and touch it, mistakenly think the ball was caught
>and head base five steps toward first, then proceed on to third stepping
>*over* second base.  After all, he already touched it, didn't he?

Bad example.  7.08 (e) reenables the force play at second if the runner
touches second, then steps back towards first.  The umpire can probably
extend on this philosophy (under 9.01 (c)) to cover other cases where a
runner touches a base, retreats, then proceeds forward again.

I believe you have quite overextended the argument.

>Well, it doesn't work that way.  I claim that the obvious meaning
>of the rulebook is that a runner must touch each base each time
>he passes by it in either direction.

And I claim that the *obvious* interpretation is that a runner can not be held
liable to retouch something he has not touched.  Obviously we disagree on what
is obvious. :-)

>  Any other interpretation
>seems to me to be an attempt to look for a loophole in the rulebook.
>But baseball isn't law, and loopholes aren't allowed.

Ah, but the rules of baseball *are* treated as law, at least at the pro level.
Why else provide the means for protesting the exercise and interpretation of
a rule?  Have you already forgotten the '83? pine tar decision, where Brett's
home run was upheld based on what amounts to a *loophole* in rule 6.06 (d)
(i.e. the extra pine tar does not improve the distance factor of the bat)?
[This ruling, BTW, forced a note to be appended to rule 1.10 (c) explicitly
stating that a player who used such a bat was *not* subject to 6.06 (d).]
That rule 6.10 was modified after 1980 to force the DH to come to bat at
least once because Weaver was writing pitchers' names into the DH slot of
the starting lineup (to postpone the decision on which legitimate hitter he
would use until the last possible moment)?

There is no collection of laws or rules which does not have the potential for
loopholes.  A loophole is usually closed only after it is exploited.

>  The usual
>response to a protest based on a loophole is to disallow it and
>maybe reword the rulebook.

Usual, but not automatic.  Again, the Brett pine tar incident was a case where
the umpire made his decision based on the spirit of the rule, whereas prior
rulings on the *letter* of the rule had been upheld.

>I regard the idea that a runner can go eight-five feet past a
>missed base with impunity to be preposterous.  The idea that he
>could then *again* miss that base in the reverse direction is
>ludicrious.  The whole idea makes a mockery of the concept of
>baserunning, which is that you run from base to base, touching
>each base as you go by.

Perhaps.  But some people thought that disallowing Brett's home run was
preposterous.  (And some still think that allowing an at-bat to stand after an
illegally prepped bat was used is preposterous.)  The '80 Yankees thought that
Weaver's use of the DH slot was preposterous.  Until a preposterous situation
occurs, however, one must accept the possibility that the umpire will make a
preposterous call on a poorly worded rule.

> It is true that by straining the written
>rules you could interpret them that way, but I regard this interpretation
>as sufficiently bizarre so as never to come up in actual play.

This may be true with regard to the admittedly bad example I gave to illustrate
the traditional view of a missed base.  But as for the original point I was
trying to make -- that a base which needed to be retouched based on rule 6.02
(c) *automatically* constituted a "missed base" until retouched -- I do not
think that the interpretation is sufficiently bizarre that it would not come
up in actual play.  In fact, as noted by the subject line and the article
which started this whole thread, it already has.
--
Tony Nardo,		   INET: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu, trn@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
 Johns Hopkins Univ./APL   UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcomm!trn
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball