Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-21

player enters the game and fails TO
inform the umpire. ] have had such
a thing happen several times. re-
call one game where manager made
a change in right ffelders without no
tifying me. and the presence of the
new player was not known to me UNI
til 1 saw him make u sensational
catch. One section says for such an
offense a team is liable to a fine of
So. That would make it seem such an
act was all right, and that a mere
money fine was the only remedy. Yet
there is another section. which says
player does not enter the game until
he announces his substitution to the
umpire. Major league umpires take
no action other than to permit the
entry of the substitute. just as If he
had made known the substitution, and
he continues in the lineup in the po-
sition of the player he succeeded.
However, each year hundreds of dis
putes arise over such a mix-up. as it
is contended the player never actually
was in the game, hence anything he
did was void. while others insist he
was an improper batsman. Some
status of a substitute not announcing
himself would be a big boon for the
amateurs and make the life of the
sand lot umpire more pleasant.
Concerning the Pitcher.
I don't believe the pitcher has a
right to get on the rubber without the
ball in his possession. The rules give
him that right, provided he make no
motion to deliver the ball to the bats
pitcher is deception and should be
classified as a balk. The rubber was
made to pitch from. Getting on the
rubber is evidence the pitcher is pre-
pared to pitch, yet every one knows il
is impossible to do so without the
ball.
Credit for Home Run.
When batsman hits ball over the
fence or into the stands he should be
entitled to a home run. regardless of
the situation when such ii hit is made.
If both teams go scoreless for eight
| innings and with two out. and a run
ner on first in the last half of the
ninth, the batsman hits the ball over
the fence, he gets credit for only
| triple. because the game was over the
| moment the runner originally on first
crossed the plate. That isn't justice
to the batsman. 1t really makes no
difference whether the score is 1 to 0
or 2 to o. The latter score would
make it possible for the batsman to
receive credit for the home run which
he had earned.
Cutting the Bases.
II with less than two out. runner
SoSS a bocC dho SSOISSs SUE
ceeding runner also scores on the
same play, 'the argument is always
raised that the succeeding runner should
be called out for technically passing
the first runner on the lines since he
! touched a certain base the preceding
runner missed. For example, there is
one out. and runners on first and sec
ond. The batter triples and both run
ners score. The runner originally on
second fails to touch third. The ball is
returned to that base and he is called
out. The claim is then made that the
succeeding runner technically passed
the other runner on the lines and should
be called out. I have always thought
it a foolish contention, yet it is possible
to present an argument. If there was
clause that said any act of a preceding
runner in failing to touch base shall
have no bearing on succeeding runner
who runs in a proper manner all dis
puteS would end.
Hitting the Umpire.
When @he infield is drawn in for a
play at the plate. and the batsman
hits ball that gets by the first line
Of defense. and then hits the person
Of the umpire, such ball should be
considered in play. The moment the
ball got past the infield all chance for
a play by the infielders was removed;
hence. there Is no reason why the bali