While that is technically the rule - as I am obliged to remind people almost every week, when they bitch and whine about a shortstop playing deep enough to be standing on the outfield grass because they think there is a rule against it - no good umpire would ever allow it. It’s making a travesty of the game.
Are you saying that an ump has the right to overrule the rules because he thinks that a version of following the rules makes a travesty of the game? This is curious. If it’s “technically” the rule, then it’s the rule. How can an arbiter of the game rule it out of order? Or do umps have this sort of discretion?
So has any team ever tried to use the fielders as a screen for the pitcher. It seems to me that you can place your fielder between the pitcher and batter in such a way that the batter is effectively blind to the pitch.
Of course, if the hitter does connect, the fielder could be in a world of hurt. I’m just wondering if has ever been tried.
Was the overshift employed against Bonds a travesty of the game?
What about a third baseman/first baseman who is playing way, way in because the pitcher is up and is obviously going to bunt?
Well, aside from the possible application of ‘screening’, it’s also just plain stupid. The fielder gets hit by a ball, which is almost never good… 
And the pitcher has other options for deliberately throwing a ball if he chooses to… like that thing where the catcher moves several feet to the side of the home plate in order to deliberately walk the batter.
I only asked out of curiosity if there was something that covered this contingency in the rules. I know it’s completely not in the spirit of the game.
Another situation when a pitcher may be required to make a tag out is when there is a wild pitch/ passed ball with a man on third. Generally the pitcher is expected to come in and cover home plate and make the tag if and when he gets the ball fom the catcher retireving it.
The Sages of Baseball have already addressed this issue:
Ah, I overlooked that Julius Henry. I thank you and humbly stand corrected.
Zev Steinhardt
RickyJay, I have to disagree with you on this one. As an NCAA (and youth, and high school) umpire, I would never force a player to another position, and sure as heck don’t think he’s making a travesty of the game by playing extra deep. The reality is, when players position themselves in weird positions, the opposing team usually learns how to exploit that, and the problem fixes itself. I don’t personally think that falls under the “travesty of the game” rule, nor do most of my umpire colleagues.
E3
Enright3, I think you read RickJay’s post too closely, and thought he was talking about what he actually did mention (shortstop position) rather than what was the topic of his sentence (zev’s post). Let me reconstruct what he said in a clearer manner:
The “travesty of the game” phrase comes from rule 7.08(i): Any runner is out when "after he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game… "
It seems to me this was included to specifically eliminate conduct that parodies the game (or better: turns it into a farce); this is the common meaning of travesty.
However the umpire does have the duty to interpret unusual situations that occur on the field. Rule 9.01© is explicit: “Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.”
I think this explicit permission to rule on items outside of the rules has been confused with the “travesty of the game” clause. Most likely this is because the only other place most people see the word “travesty” is in the cliche “travesty of justice”. This phrase has, pehaps, led people to believe the word “travesty” means “injustice”, when it really means “a burlesque or parody”. This is supported by the fact that the umpire’s rulings under 9.01© are hardly absolute. Protests are allowed if, in the manager’s judgement, the umpire did not correctly apply the rules; just ask George Brett.
In summary, I believe the latitude given by 9.01© is much narrower than commonly thought, and that the umpire can’t simply declare any action a “travesty of the game”.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
The “travesty of the game” phrase comes from rule 7.08(i): Any runner is out when "after he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game… "*
Was that rule put in because of Jimmy Piersall, or was that in place before he came along?
As has been pointed out, I think I have been misunderstood, or you sort of missed the point we were on.
The shortstop playing extra deep is fine. The shortstop standing between the pitcher and the catcher is not.
Ahh…OK. I just can’t imagine why anyone would think that a shortstop standing in outfield grass would have a rule against it? While it may seem like bad strategy, that isn’t something the ump should question.