New Britain herald., 1927-08-27

league umpire, has rendered an opinion in answer to a query on the decision of Umpire Ed Crowley in last Sundays game between the Fall cons and the Corbin Red Sox. Billy states that the decision would be made on a common sense-fair play 1 interpretation of the rules.
 He states that if the play came up in a game in which he was um- piring, he would have sent the run ner back to second base. ! So that the matter may be clearly set in the minds of the baseball fans | interested, both the letter written | to Mir. Evans and his answer to the | query are printed. The letter from | the Herald to Billy Evans follows: August g, 1927. l William Evans,
 l NEA Service,
 | Cleveland, o.
 | Dear sir:
 ] In a city championship game in ! this city last Sunday decision by
 an umpire has brought up a ques-
 tion that I would ask you kindly to
 clarify. I have looked through the
 rules but can find no specific in
 stance covering the play and your
 opinion would be greatly appreciat-
 ed and respected,
 The situation In brief was this:
 A runner is on third and another { on first with two men out. On the ! first pitched ball, the runner first
 starts to steal second. The catcher
 on the opposing side throws to sec
 ond to get him. The runner on
 third dashes for home. The ball
 without a play being made on the
 man going to second. is returned to the catcher to get the man coming home. The catcher drops the ball and the runner Is declared safe by i the umpire-in-chief. Then followed | the play that has raised as much argument as Dempseys reputed foul of Sharkey.
 As the catcher drops the ball, 1t
 
 slid home. It is in under his back. He lies on 1t and waves the man on second to go to third. The play is blocked from the view of the um- pire-in-chief but the umpire on bases sees 1t and declares it inter ference. As penalty. he declares the runner going from second to third "out." Was he right or wrong ?
 Some say he had no right to make the decision as it was up to the umpire-in-chief. Others say he WIS perfectly within his rights. Some say the penalty to be imposed in the case was to send the runner on third back to second while others claim the umpire was right in declaring the runner out for the interference of his teammate.
 I would greatly appreciate 1t If you could clarify the situation be- cause your opinion will about settle the matter
 Very truly yours. SPORTS EDITOR, MT. rN dIS dllS"el u tli~ dbO' query is as follows: August 25, 1927. Sports Editor, Herald. New Britain, Conn.
 Dear Sir:
 The play you have cited in your letter comes under what major | league umpires would call a com nonsense, fair play interpretation of the rules In making the rules such a happ 2ning was never anticl- pated therefore it is not definitely covered. It is in such situations that the umpire must bring into l his decision the element of fair play on which all sports events | hinge.
 If such a play came up in a ma , .ior league game in which I was umpire, the moment the runner with the ball underneath him waved the runner on second 10 go 10 third, I would have called time. in all probability reached under the players back myself and recovered 1 the ball and then sent the runner who advanced to third, back to the base that he had originally made on the play. second.
 At the start of the play, the ob- iect of the two runners was for one to advance and the other to score on the double steal. This is what happened when the catcher drop ped the ball at the plate. making the runner at that base safe. Then, when the ball rolled under the run ner lying on the ground at the plate, he decided to try some decep ton and as you say, waved the run ner on second to third. making it apparent that he himself was try ing to put over something. At this point the umpire should have call ed time. That is the fairest solution since neither team suffers because of the dishonest tactics one player is pursuing.
 Several years ago I had a similar