The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-06-29
CHADWICK DECIDES
BASEBALL POINT

In the first baseball game of the last
series between Kamehameha and oahu
College a decision was rendered which
has occasioned considerable comment.
and in regard to which there seems to
be quite a difference of opinion among
the ball twirlers of this city.
AS it was point which might come
up in future games. and therefore of in
terest to all players in the islands, w
H. Babbitt, one of the most enthusiast
tie ball players in Honolulu, wrote TO
Henry Chadwick, editor of the Official
Baseball Guide. respecting the decision.
Hissreply is given In full in the fol-
lowing correspondence:
Honolulu, Hawaii. May %. 1901.
American Sports Publishing Company,
1e and IS Park Place New York
city.
Gentlemen-In baseball game re-
Gently played in Honolulu a decision
was rendered which has occasioned a
great deal of discussion, and | would
consider it a favor IL you would give
me aeeofrect decision on the point.
The rule covering said point is rule
81, section 10, last clause, III, in over
running first base, he also attempts
to run to second base. or after passing
the base He turns to his left from the
foul line, he shall forfeit such exemp-
ton from being put out.
The play was as follows: The player
in running to first oyer-ran the base
and stopped. intending to return, but
as the bali was thrown wild he turned
to the left from the foul line and sue
ceeded in reaching third base without
being touched with the ball. The ball
was then thrown to first base, and
the player declared out for not return
ing to- first base after stopping and
turning 20 the left.
There were two urnpires in the game,
and one declared him (the player out,
while the other contended that by the
reading of the rule the player by turn
ing to the left had forfeited the ex-
emption from being put out, but In
order TO be put out must be touched
with the bah While off the base. This
last umpire claiming that the turning
to the right or left having simply TO
do with the players exemption from
being put out, and not his actually be-
ing put out by being touched with the
ball concerning ruling Of second UNI
pire, Mr.. Chadwick here inserts de
cisfon correct") VIII you kindly rem
der me decision on this point and al
SO give me an answer to the following
questions?
l. Can a player be put out for over
running first base in any other way
than being touched by the ball while
off the base2
2. Does it make any difference in the
players turning TO right or left after
over-running first base, whether he is
on fair or foul ground when so turn
ing? l. e., If he turns to the right,
on fair or foul ground. and at
once returns TO the base, he Is exempt
from being put out? and If he turns to
the left, whether on fair or foul
ground. does he forfeit such exemp-
tion7
Thanking you in advance for your
kindness in this matter. l remain.
W. II. BABBITT.
Honolulu, h. T.. p. o. Box 57s.
Henry Chadwick. editor Of the Base
ball Guide. replies TO Mr.. Babbitt as
follows:
1.-The question of the out In the
above cases turns upon the runner De-
ing touched by the ball in the hands
of a player. II. in over-running n,st
base he turns to the right, thereby
avoiding foul ground. the rule exempts
the runner from being put out until
after he has retouehed first base But
IL. in over-running first base he turns
to the left and touches foul ground,
his exemption from being put out
ceases
I'm regard TO your primary question,
the player runner who first turned 20
the right and then, on the overthrow,
tried to get second base. simply for
teited his right to exemption from be-
ing put out on returning. and IL he
reached second base before being
touched. was legally entitled to the
base"