The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-02-06
AIM TO AMEND
SCOR|NG RULES
BASEBALL s0LOSs THINK PRESENT
sfrLE - UNFAIR TO
BATsMEN.
ASK JUSTICE FOR ALL
SACRIFICE FIJI SHOULD NOT CoUHT
MORE THAN GRoUsDER AND
BUNTs NEED ATTENTION.
II THE CRY.
ASK JUSTICE FOR ALL

NEW YORK, N: Y. February g.
While there \ no likelihood Of any
radical change In baseball rules this
year, scoring rules in the opinion OF
all fair-minded followers OF the nat
ionai pastime justice demands changes
in at least two reEula tiona. now in force.
Attention has been called 10 them be-
fore. and the fact that they have been
kept on the books, in their old state
In spite Of the popssaar demand for =
| shift has only served to impress more
strongly upon the fans the need Of
revision $500
The scoring regulations referred to
are two sections of the rule covering
sacrifice hfts--the one cradtting bats
man with q sacrifice and exempting him
from a time at bat when he drives In q
run by knocking q fly, whereas no
credit goes to the batsR2an who accom-
piishes just a. much good with a
grounder, and the other withholding
sacrifice credit from batsman on q
bunt unless = play is made on him
instead OF the runner whom he sought
Questiouabis Justios.
The Justice OF the sacrifice fly rule
has often been questioned. In the
FIRST plac many base ball students
are oppos1d to giving any sacrifice
credit to man who happens to drive
In run while attempting to knock
the bali out OF the lot, but. granting
that some measure of reward in the
score is due tis player who helps his
team by bringing In run with b fly.
why should mot similar reward go
to another player who helps his team
| in the same way by hitting grounder
| As the rule stands now. IL a batsman
In retired on q. fly ball and q runner
| scores from third on the out, the bats
man Is credited with sacrifice ny and
IL exempted from . time at bat. But
under the very same conditions. IL the
| batsman hits Brounder to one of the
| infieiders and II thrown out at first, a
runner scoring on the play. the hitter Is
| charged with time at bat and gets no
credit In the sacrifice department. IL
there In any Justice In this arrangement
the discoyerer would confer q general
favor by pointing II out TO a puzzled
populace.
Runners on First.
| The other rule In question La even
more unjust. With q runner on first,
for instance, the batsmAn lays down a
perfect bunt: the pitcher or shird base
man fields the tap and throws the hitter
| out at first. the other runner of course,
advancing to second The batter gets
| sacrificr hit and no time at bat All
well and good. as il 1houId be.
But give the play a different turn.
Suppose the pitcher or third baseman
who fields the bunt thinks he has a
chance to head or tbs original runner
at second and hurls the ball to that
| station for a force play. only to dts
| cover that his Judgment has beer
faulty, with the result that the man
whom he tried to head or heals the
throw and both runners are safe. Under
the scoring rules now In force the bats
man in this instance iwossd be CHARGED
with time at bat and would not get
credit for q secrtfce hit Just because
''the play was not, made on him.
Could anything be more ridiculous
I Why should the batsnaan suffer in the
scoring for another players error Of
Judgment: when he lays down just a.
good q bupt and accomplishes just as
much m the ether ha*SsHaH, who gets q
sacrifice and no time II BATE In fact
4 the man accompanies more for his
I team IN the second 1HstAIce, because
he not only advances the runner. blu,
himself reaches flrst base. Fairness
demands new rule on this point.