Came here to say the same thing, only a matter of time before we are the victim of this by product of a damn extra base, because after all we are the poster children of base running errorsThis will happen to us.
Came here to say the same thing, only a matter of time before we are the victim of this by product of a damn extra base, because after all we are the poster children of base running errors
If they are going to insist on the extra base for first, they should allow either to count as being on-base for the runner.From the picture his toes were over the white base but because of the imaginary base it wasn't touching. If the fake base didn't actually exist he would have been touching the white base. Therefore you have actually decreased the surface area that is considered safe. That whole edge that is against the fake base is gone. By making the base bigger, you actually made it smaller.
Like patdog said why are you complicating things that aren't necessary.
But it's not logical to make the base smaller because you made it bigger for safety reasons.It’s logical, it’s only good for the initial run thru.
That's not what logical means in this context. It doesn't mean here is a rule and the rule was applied and therefore it's logical. The point is there is no logic to support the rule. Once you put the extra base there, it is more logical for it to just be considered the base. The vast majority of time it's not going to matter, but there will be a few instances such as in this case where it impeded the runner from reaching the base. If it wasn't there, he would have been safe. Adding the base shouldn't disadvantage the runner.It’s logical, it’s only good for the initial run thru.