The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-12-15
Why NOT ADD
THE SACRIFICE
GROUND BALL?
Batter is Given Credit for Sac
ri1ce, but Not for Fair
Hit Grounder
LATTER is AS HARD
TO MAKE AS FORMER
Hit to Third or First Rarely
Scores the Man Waiting on
Third Base

Luckily for managers and players,
there are no radical changes In base
ball rules. AZ there are In football.
Each year the rules OF the national
pastime are gone over and the few
changes In diction which are neces-
sary for clarihcation are made. How
ever. there have been no material
changes since the adoption Of the foul
strike rule, over decade ago. The
rules OF scoring have undergone soil
revisions, but none OF great conse-
quence.
The last scoring rules incorporated
into the baseball code was the Ctncin.
natl base hit That freak swat has
caused more discussion among players
and baseball writers than anything OF
the kind in many years. There IS
really no excuse at all for the rule, yet
it is on the books and 1t must be
hered IN.
Prior to the Cincinnati base hit
there had been no changes In the scor.
Ing rules since the sacrifice fly made
It's appearance.
Considering the sacrifice ny as q
means OF scoring a man from third
base, there Is some reason WAY
hitter should not De crediteF
time at bat. pul there IL just az much
reason why q man should be excused
from time up who scores a runner
from third on an inheId out. Just
wherein the makers of the rules can
see q distinction between the two
plays is not obvious. II there is q
runner. on third and one or nobody
down, the batter Is sent up to drive
him In. II he hits q ny to the out
field and the runner scores he Is CIV.
en- sacrifice, and II not credited with
being up. Yet II, under the self-same
conditions, he hits . grounder 70 Sec
ond and Is thrown out, even though
the man may score from third. he II
given Q time up. Now the point 10.
what Is the difference? In each case
the runner IL scored through the ef.
forts OF the batter. In both cases the
batter dies; yet in one instance ne
Is counted ut bat and In the other he
Is not.
To be sure. there Is no injustice 20
one player more than TO another. Al
the same time there surely ought 10
be a change made one way or the
other, so that the rules would be uni
form. Either the sacrifice fly ought
TO be cut out or the sacrifice on q
grounder should be insertde.
There was never any kick made on
the adoption Of the sacrifice fly rule.
Naturally the player gets the advan-
Itage OF the rulings and nobody else
would have a kick coming, even II the
rule worked 10 the detriment Of the
players average. However, valid
argument might be made against the
sacrifice fly as well as against Its sis
| ter play, the sacrifice inheld hit. me
only excuse FOR not counting q man At
bat on the sacrifice fly Is the fact that
he scored q run, and when the matter
Is considered from all angles. IL IL not
all due TO Athe batter by any means.
When runner ia on third aud the
batter hits a fly into lett field, no
must time his start from third accu-
rately. do some fast sprinting, IL the
fly IL at all close in. and then proba-
bly, make good slide for. the plate.
When those facts are tsken into con.
sideration. Il is evident fhae after All
the batter Is not responsible for more