Someone in another thread brought up the fact that Bud Selig would have overruled the rules of baseball in the World Series last year, preventing the Phillies from winning a rain-shortened game. I’m not a fancy engineer or anything, but I’d have to say any system that can be influenced from the outside like that isn’t very closed.
Munch -
Baseball as we know it is more than the set of the rules in the game itself - there are league rules for various matters (scheduling, etc.) and MLB wide rules (eligibility, roster size, etc.) These are administrative in nature and outside the scope of the original question.
That’s great. Rule 4.10(c) is not “administrative in nature”, nor is its suspension.
But the existence of the commissioner and his role most certainly is. He is empowered to “act in the best interests of [MLB] baseball” as he sees fit. What he does is outside the scope of the OP - I should know, I wrote it 
As the OP, I was well aware of this when I wrote the question. I am sure if you review it, you will see I did not ask about administration issues in this league or that, in fact I asked about the game’s rules itself, including variations as might be practiced by this league or that around the world.
Please don’t hijack this and make a mountain where there is not even a molehill. We covered everything several weeks ago, if you don’t have anything new to add, that is fine. Let sleeping dogs lie please.
ETA - and no one here, esp. me is advocating the system is closed, when you count the administrative rules or not. The OP asked if such an analysis has ever been done. I don’t speculate on the results of such an analysis before it is well underway, although I have my suspicions how it would turn out.
A Pitcher with 2 heads???..I’d hate to try to steal a base on that dude. :dubious:
…gets me thinkin’ bout football.
Do both heads need to face the batter during the pitch?
Here’s a play: Bases loaded, two out. Batter strikes out swinging at a wild pitch. He runs to first and everybody is safe. Does batter get RBI?
The defense appeals that the batter batted out of turn. Umpire calls proper batter out. Does the run still count?
The rules seem to indicate that the batter does not get the RBI since the run scored on a wild pitch. They also indicate that if the “bat out of turn” rule is invoked, that the run does not score since the improper batter became a runner “forcing” him home.
It seems like an inconsistency there… If he reached on wild pitch it’s no RBI, and run should still count if batter was out of turn. On the other hand if he was forced home, batter should get the RBI if the “bat out of turn” rule is not invoked.
You’re replying to a 5 year old thread, where the OP has been banned.
A great example is the discussion this year about the relief pitcher Jordan Walden that hops to home plate as part of the delivery. Although there is debate about whether or not he gets an advantage the fact that there is a loophole that theoretically would let him get as close to the plate as he wants as part of his normal delivery as long as he is pitching out of the stretch (if in the windup the pitch would be illegal) shows that not everything is accounted for in the rules.
No.
No. The run was scored because of the improper batter’s advance to first base, and is thus nullified.
I’m not sure where you see ambiguity relating to either of these questions.
I certainly feel the OP’s frustration in this thread. If it is impossible to cover every situation in a real world game, surely some game theorist has a provided a proof of that. You guys never did do a very good job, since you kept bringing up things that could easily be covered by general rules. A general proof would have been a lot better.
Even if the rules can never technically be closed, it does seem to me that it would be possible to construct the rules so that all people with the same information would agree on their application. I do not see any reason that contradictions are a necessary part of a real-world rules system. As for covering the edgiest of edge cases, you can cover that with a blanket rule saying that what’s not forbidden is allowed, or vice versa.
That seems to be how everyone is interpreting that pitcher who hops. It isn’t currently forbidden by the rules, so he’s allowed to do it. The fact that he found a loophole doesn’t make the system incomplete if loopholes themselves are covered.
Also, note that I’m not saying that having a complete rule system in this manner is necessarily a good thing or that it wouldn’t fail a benefits vs. cost analysis. Just that it seems theoretically possible.
I think the rules of baseball are a lot like the rules of law as opposed to mathematics and physics.
Coming from a mathematical background and moving into the law, it frustrated me at first that situations could arise that weren’t covered by existing law. I thought that it was sloppy legislative drafting and that some formula could be applied to close loopholes and make laws air tight. But law is not like a science because it deals with human beings and social interactions which can contain an infinite number of unforeseen variables.
Likewise, baseball rules cannot be reduced to mathematical precision even if we had a 200 volume rule book.
If the run scored because of the improper batter’s advance to first base, then I think the batter should get the RBI if no appeal is made on the improper batter.
However, if the run is scored because of the wild pitch (no RBI), then it shouldn’t be nullified if an appeal is made.
Why? You don’t get an RBI when you’re safe at first on an error with two outs. You can get an RBI without advancing to first, or advance to first without getting an RBI. One does not guarantee the other.
I don’t think it is an inconsistency. It’s clear that the runner scored because of the wild pitch and not from the actions of the improper batter. Run scores, no RBI, batter-runner is third out.
A batter cannot be awarded an RBI for advancing on a dropped third strike because that is not a permissible way to get an RBI, according to Rule 10.04. The ways a batter can get an RBI are specifically listed and that isn’t one of them.
So he scores on WP (no RBI). If improper batter is appealed, is the run cancelled? What if he were the only runner on base? Would his run still be cancelled? If there were only one out, would the runner be returned to third in either case?
Rule 6.07(b) states the run counts: “If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.”
I’m having trouble following the thread here, but if people are arguing that a run would score on a two-out dropped-third-strike/wild-pitch by an improper batter subsequently called out, I disagree. The run in that case would score because of the improper batter’s advance to first base. Without the advance to first base, there is no wild pitch. Rule 6:07(b): (My bolding)
I agree that there is an ambiguity in the rule. The runner has scored on a wild pitch while an improper batter is at bat, so the run should seem to count. However the question remains as to whether the runner scored because of the improper batter-runner’s advance to first base.
While it’s true that the run would not have counted but for the improper batter-runner’s advance to first base, I contend that the most immediate and direct “cause” of the runner scoring is the wild pitch and not the advance to first base. I would count the run.