From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.171653.17399@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> doerfler@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark T. Doerfler) writes:
>During last night's Oakland-Toronto game (game 2), the following situation took
>place:
>
>	With one out and men on first and second, LaRoussa sends out the call 
>for the double steal.  David Cone pitches a 59 footer and the ball bounces off
>the catcher.  As the ball is bouncing towards the third-base dugout, the runner
>rounds third and heads for home.  As the catcher reaches the ball, both he and
>the ball go sliding into the dugout while the lead runner scores.  Oakland
>seemingly has one run in and a man on third, but the home plate umpire sends
>the runners back to second and third.  Cone then proceeds to strike out the next
>two batters, stranding both runners and keeping Oakland off the scoreboard.
>
>My question: the runners are awarded one base when the ball enters the dugout,
>and since the lead runner had already passed third base, why was he not allowed
>to score?
>
>I am positive that the lead runner had rounded third base, as the replay of the 
>catcher sliding into the dugout clearly showed an Oakland player in the
>foreground as he passed the third base coach.  He was running in the direction
>on home plate.  In addition, as the steal was on, there is no possible way that
>he would not have reached third base by the time the catcher could have gotten
>up and run all the way to the dugout. 
>
>One of the announcers mentioned that the runner was not half-way between third 
>and home when the ball entered the dugout.  Does this fact make any difference?
No.  The rule states clearly that if a throw from a pitcher (including
a pitch) while the pitcher is in contact with the rubber that gets
lodged in equipment or sails into dead-ball territory causes the
ball to be dead and runners are awarded one base from the time of 
the throw.  It DOESN'T matter, despite what Jim Kaat says, where the
runners were when the ball actually became dead, only what base the
runner occupied when the pitch was thrown.  So unless the runner on 
second had actually reached third before the ball left the pitcher's
hand, tough luck.  Just like it was tough luck that Wilson's liner
bounced over the wall (two bases instead of three).

A similar situation occurs when an infielder throws wild over the
first-baseman's mitt into the stands.  If it was the first play, then
all runners are allowed two bases from the time of the pitch, UNLESS
IN THE OPINION OF THE UMPIRE THE RUNNER HAD ALREADY REACHED FIRST
BASE AT THE TIME OF THE THROW, in which case the award is two bases
from the time of the throw.  Note again that the actual time for the 
ball to become dead is irrelevent.  The only concern is the time of the
throw.
>I always thought that reaching the base was the important factor.
>
>Also, the catcher did not touch the ball as it went out of play.  Had he done
>so, both runners would have been awarded two bases from where they were when the
>pitch had been made.  The rule for the case when the catcher does not touch the
>ball says nothing about awarding the bases from where the runners were at the
>origination of the pitch.  (Rule 7.05 (h) possibly, or somewhere near that)  So
>I would think that the base would be awarded from where the runners were at the
>moment when the ball entered the dugout.
>
Nope.

>By the way, I am neither a Toronto nor an Oakland fan, but am just curious as
>my sense of justice has been annoyed.
>
>Would someone please help clear this up for me.  Thank you.

Clear, now?

Will someone inform those at CBS?

RStimets