New Britain herald., 1927-08-29
JOHN B. FOSTER GIVES
 HIS OPINION OF PLAY
Baseball Expert Declares That Runner Who Interfered At Home Plate Should Have Been Called Out-Um- pire E. J. Crowley Directs Query-Different De. cision From That of Billy Evans = Man Scoring Should Have Been Punished For Illegal Play.

John B. Foster. expert on the in- depreciation of baseball rules has rendered a decision on the play winch took place in the Corbin Red SoxFalcon baseball series games a week ago Sunday. He expresses the decision that the runner at home plate who caused the interference, should have been called out by the umpire-in-chief.
 The query to Mir. Foster was di- rected by Umpire E. J. Crowley who at the same time gives his version of the play in the following group of letters. The difference of opin- ion as expressed by MT. Foster and Billy Evans tends to prove the con- tention that the umpire on the spot was the one to use his discretion in the matter. The correspondence on the matter follows:
 August 29, 1927 Sporting Editor,
 New Britain Herald. Dear Sir:-
 I am forwarding you two letters requesting that you publish same in your sporting column. The letters have to do with decision rendered by me in last Sundays game be- tween the Falcons and Corbin Red Sox.
 The one is my'letter to Mir. John B. Foster (mouthpiece of baseball in my opinion) requesting his opin- ion on the play as explained by me in my letter. The other is his reply to my letter.
 Trusting that the required space will be given these letters and thanking you in advance for the courtesy let me remain,
 Yours sincerely,
 E. J. CROWLEY.
 Umpire Crowleys letter to Mir. Foster explaining the play, is as follows:
 August 21, 1927. Mir. John B Foster.
 45 Rose St,
 New York. N. r.
 Dear Sir
 I am writing you this letter to ask that you render an opinion re- garding a decision made by me in a game played this afternoon as the first game of championship series between two local teams.
 The play in question occurred as follows: I am working as the base umpire; two men are out in the last half of the fifth inning. A runner is on first and third. The runner on first attempts to steal second, the catcher throwing to that base to get him. The runner at third starts for home; the second baseman ignores the runner going to second and re- turns the throw to the catcher to get the man attempting to score. The runner slides in and is ruled safe by the umpirein-chief when the catcher drops the throw.
 At this point the ball is lying about six inches forward of the run ner who had slid into home and ap- parently out of vision of the umpire in chief and the fielding catcher. The runner seeing the ball put out his left hand, seized the ball and thrust 1t under is body. At the same time he motioned with his right hand to the runner at second to advance to third. Seeing the action on the part of the runner at home I immediately ruled the runner out who was advancing to third deeming the action of the runner as an in reference.
 I trust that you may be able to render a decision on the case as I have stated it. The play caused much dissension and I will await your pleasure. In the meantime be- lieve me to be,
 Yours sincerely
 E. J. CROWLEY.