The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-26

geStionS about those rules lIal Hahi-
testify ought to be changed He writes:
Now is the time to talk about
amending the rules of play in baseball
in accordance with the lessons taught
by the experience in the playing of the
game of the past championship season
Of 1899. Year after year, of course, the
necessity for making changes in the
lines of the game is lessefled; moreover,
1t is advisable even in the matter OF
benefiting by past experience, ITO so
slow in introducing new features in
the methods of play in our national
game. But nevertheless the close Of
every season finds openings, to a more
or less extent, for advantageous amend
ments being made to the code Of play
ing rules, if only for the purpose OF
making still more clear to the profess
sional mind the true intent and mean
;ng Of every rule of play and giving
palmer Interpretation to such new
rules-adopted the year before-as may
make the definition clearer to every
class of players. ...s.
1899 in regard ito the practical working
Of the existing playing rules, to my
mind points very clearly to the de-
STABILITY, if not to the actual neces-
sity, of making few important
amendments to the rules LOT the ehsu-
ing season of 1900
The first one of Importance is the
rule governing the stealing of bases,
which undoubtedly wants reWording
Base stealing has become so attractive
and valuable feature of the game
and SO important an element OF success
~, hat needless
obstruction to it's successful employ
1nent found in the rules should be re-
moved. The existing scoring rule, gov
erning the stealing of bases, reads as
follows:
"A stolen base shall be credited to
the base runner whenever he reaches
the base he attempts to steal unaided
by fielding or by a battery error or a
hit by the batsman."
This rule is too stringent and bears
uniustly on the skillful base stealer.
The fault OF its wording Hes in its pro-
hibiting a base runner from being
credited with stolen base If he is aid
ed "by fielding error, battery error
or by hit by the batsman." Now, If
a base runner does not start to steal
a base until he is induced to do SO by a
e fielding error, then the prohibition in
the rule might be just and proper; but
to deprive the runner of the credit of a
stolen base because a fielder Is led to
make an error by the starting of the
runner to steal a base, Is outside of
this limitation. .....
A catcher while about to receive the
ball from the pitcher, seeing the runner
start to steal a base, may, in his eager
ness to get the ball and throw 1T to the
base player quickly, either drop it or
tumble it in the effort. or throw it on
the bound to the fielder or out of his
fair reach.
In either case the error is entirely
due to the base runners effort to steal,
and not an ordinary fielding error.
Then, again, the pitcher in throwing
the ball to the catcher for the purpose
Of having him try to throw a runner
out may. by this self-same starting
movement Of the runner, be thereby
made to pitch the ball wide or out of
the fair reach of the catcher, and this
would also constitute an error induced
by the starting of the runner to steal
the base, and thereby not a legitimate
error to be rated as one aiding the
runner" Now, the amendment to the
rule should be a wording which should
distinguish the errors made before the
start to steal is made from the error
which is caused by the start itself.
Another much-needed revision Is that
applicable to the rule defining sacrifice
hits, which, as now worded, is simply
absurd on it's face. Here is the exist
ing rule:
Rule rs, section T. states that Sin the
fourth column shall be placed the sac
riice hits, which shall be credited to
the batsman who, when no one is out,
or when but one man is out, advances
a runner a base by a bunt hit. which
results in putting out the batsman,
or would SO result If the ball were
handled without an error"
The above rule excludes the recording
In the score of any sacrifice hit which
fl nt hn IF n mt h A
skillful sacrifice hit is undoubtedly
made when the batsman, in his effort
to make a base hit, hits the ball in
such a way that il 1t fails to be a base
hit, it will at least oblige the fielder
to put the striker out and thereby al
when the hit is made to secure the
succeeding base. A sacrifice hit, too
Is also made-not so skilfully, however,
as In the above case-when. with a
runner on base and either with no
hand out or with only one out, the
batsman hits long, high ball to deep
outfield, which, though it gives chance
for a catch, nevertheless admits of the
runner stealing the next base after the
catch is made. These sacrifice hits are
just as legitimate as that made by a
bunt hit, and ought to be similarly
credited in the rule.
change is needed in the same rule
in section Z, defining errors, which
reads as follows:
Section 7. An error shall be given in
the seventh column for each misplay
which allows the striker or base runner
to make one or more bases when per-
feet play would have insured his being
put out. except that wild pitches,
bases on balls bases on the batsman
being struck by a pitched ball. or in
case of illegal pitched balls, balks and
passed balls. all of which comprise bat
terry errors, shall not be included in
said column"
This rule, in the wording of the sec
ond line of the section, conflicts with
the rule governing stolen bases, which
says that:
An error shall not be scored against
the catcher for wild throw to prevent
stolen base, unless the. base runner
advances an extra base because of the
error"
What is required in this rule Is to
except the error which is caused nv
the starting of the runner to steal a
base.
The above are 2 few of the needed
amendments to be made to the rules