Hall argument, Part II: Rose goes in
Pete Rose is baseball's all-time hits leader. Equally important: He never cheated the game.
As Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and every other lyin’ cheat in the baseball record books seem to be moving further away from Cooperstown, Pete Rose could be moving closer.
I didn’t plan on blogging about this today. But if emails and comments are any indication, several readers seem confused, if not angered, by my positions on Rose (whom I believe should be in the Hall) and proven steroid uses (who should not be). Some think they are in conflict with each other. I don’t. So I felt the need to clear the air.
Loading ...Also the New York Daily News is now reporting that commissioner Bud Selig might be softening his position on Rose and could make him Hall-eligible again. According to long-time baseball writer Bill Madden, one reason for Selig’s change in thought were comments made by our own Henry Aaron.
COOPERSTOWN — Thanks to the behind-the-scenes lobbying from some of the most influential Hall of Famers, commissioner Bud Selig is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose’s lifetime suspension from baseball.
The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball’s all-time hit king was Hank Aaron’s seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: “I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there.”
It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others.
Here’s my thought on Rose: He never cheated the game. Gambling did not enhance his ability to hit a baseball. He did not accumulate 4,256 hits because he obsessed over whether the Packers would cover.
Now, gambling on baseball is verboten for players. Rose broke that rule. So a suspension was understandable. But a “lifetime” ban from the sport and the resulting loss of eligibility for the Hall of Fame never was justified. Baseball commissioned John Dowd to look into the gambling allegations. Dowd interviewed bookies and assorted lowlifes. He determined that Rose bet on baseball, including 52 Cincinnati Reds games. However, at no point, Dowd concluded, did Rose bet against Cincinnati.
And if you really want to read the whole Dowd Report, here you go.
So what’s the argument against Rose? That he bet on his own team to win a baseball game? I’m not condoning his gambling, but come on. Baseball’s all-time hits leader is not worthy of induction because he really, really wanted his team to win even more so than usual because he bet $2,000 on the game?
I’ve got another poll to the left, and I’m casting the first vote. Rose goes in. Go ahead and weigh in.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
105 comments Add your comment
brave1
July 27th, 2009
1:19 pm
Pete cares less about the H.O.F. than he does being allowed back in the game.
Why?
Money. He wants the opportunity for a team to pay him 3 million dollars to manage. He said as much five years ago.
Jt
July 27th, 2009
1:20 pm
It is time for MLB to declare the “Pete Rose Rule” -allow eligibility to the HOF without allowing him necessarily to occupy a position for a team, particularly a manager’s position.
dutchrules
July 27th, 2009
1:23 pm
LET THE MAN IN!!!! He has suffered enough. Michael Vick bets/fights dogs and kills them. All the years of bs with HGH and steroids of professional athletes. What Pete did was nothing compared to these doings. LET HIM IN!!!!
phoenix falcon
July 27th, 2009
1:23 pm
no
Paddy
July 27th, 2009
1:29 pm
Gtdhoo…If he knew there was a lifetime ban? Inside the front door in every professional clubhouse, bordered in red with hugh letters spells it out. Once you have read that notice you would never have any doubts about gambling and the sport of baseball. Every spring the FBI( retired agents mostly) makes a tour of minor and major league camps,spelling out what responsibilities players, coaches and front office folks have as it pertains to this gambling rule in baseball. There is no grey area in baseball about gambling. It is spelled out for all to see upon their entrance into the clubhouse. It is there in plain site in Caldwell, Idaho and in New York.NY. The same notice the same warning.
Art
July 27th, 2009
1:31 pm
Jeff,
Didn’t Pete Rose sign an agreement that he would not be admitted, nor to ever seek admittance to the HOF in return for not being prosecuted?
CaliChopper
July 27th, 2009
1:38 pm
If you open the doors for Rose, then the door swings open for everyone, gamblers, cheats, steroid users. Rose is no different than Bonds or Clemons, Sosa, Mac or Arod, he cheated and lied about it. He may have been one of baseballs greatest all time players but it was his arrogance that allowed him to break the rules. If he gets in it will be a shame and he will be just as arrogant and laughing his way in at baseball and the fans. If he had come clean right away he would be in now. I hope his chance at the hall stays as ruined as Ray Fosse’s career.
Observer
July 27th, 2009
1:40 pm
MightyQuinn @ 12:03 -
You are SPOT ON! Good post. If Pete Rose wants to get into the Hall of Fame he should buy a ticket.
John
July 27th, 2009
1:41 pm
The strongest argument so far against Rose in the HOF revolves around the concept that he ‘knowingly violated’ rules against gambling and is a cheat. So – how to defend the eligibility (not to mention election) of Gaylord Perry? A player whose reputation was built on – and ultimately confirmed – as one who skirted the rules of the game to gain advantage?
Rose accepted the ‘ban’ from baseball at a time when it did not compromise eligibility for the HOF – so rescinding the eligibility requirement has ZERO to do with his permanent ban from baseball handed down by Giammatti. For the HOF to admit players who knowingly cheated (Perry) or allow eligibility for those who admittedly cheated (Giambi, A-Rod etc.), is a ridiculous double-standard. Let voters decide.
John
July 27th, 2009
1:43 pm
Ed – Do you feel the same about Gaylord Perry? Alex Rodriguez? Barry Bonds? If so, I assume you would apply the same criteria and rescind/prevent their HOF admittance?
IdiotsREverywhere
July 27th, 2009
1:48 pm
He bet as a manager, not as a player, Morons. He shouldn’t be punished as a Player, but as a Manager. Sorry that I’m using logic and that will be lost on 99% of you. The fact that the Career Hits Leader isn’t in the Hall of Fame is a joke. His stat is in there, I have a picture of the plaque as well as the uniform Pete was wearing when he became the all time hits leader. The hypocrisy of MLB is a joke. Put the man in as a player, he earned it. Ban him as a Manager.
The sad thing is, if Pete Rose were a black man, we would not be having this conversation. He would be in the Hall of Fame.
Chris
July 27th, 2009
1:48 pm
Jeff – we disagree over steroids/amphetamines, but I’m with you on this one 100%. Rose deserves it.
You and Bradley have done great this season. Keep up the solid work.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
1:50 pm
Dr. Watson – I have a Mickey Mantel on my fireplace.
GT – Shoeless Joe should be in today. He knew about plot to throw games but if you look at his stats didn’t actively participate. My opinion.
Paddy – Baseball remained viable before, during and after Pete Rose bet on games. There goes that argument.
All I’m saying – The 20 years isn’t a factor for me. I’ve always thought Rose should be in the Hall. And my position is neither “unsupportable” nor “hypocritical” at all, but I commend you on using such big words.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
1:53 pm
Some have even said it makes a difference because he “only betted on the Reds to win.” Well, I wonder why some people think that distinction matters?
I read this written in another column and it makes perfect sense. It makes no difference if he threw the game to win a bet on his team losing, or if he bet he team would win. What if he bet $1,000 his team would win? What if the Reds were ahead by one run in the eighth inning at home and Rose gets three pitchers up. He did so because he’s desperate to win that game because he has a financial stake, or because he’s already in debt to bookies, but he weakens his bullpen for the next day’s game.
Or he bets on other teams and goes into deep debt. The bookies approach him and put the squeeze on him for insider information in return for forgiving the debt, to conspire to set odds according to information only they had.
These are the real and material reasons why baseball adopted such a harsh rule in the aftermath of the Black Sox scandal.
J-man
July 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
Personally, I’m in favor of Rose getting in, but then again I’m a forgiving person by nature. Those who are against this will do what they always do whenever this subject comes up – congratulate everyone who agrees with them and condemn those who disagree.
In life, some people are forgiving and some people just hold stuff against you forever. What matters here is not what kind of person all of us who write here are, but what kind of person Bud Selig is.
bali smith
July 27th, 2009
1:55 pm
seems almost petty today that petey rose is not not in cooperstown today because he placed bets on sports teams. Maybe that is a statement on todays society. I mean i can watch ESPN just about every night and watch texas holdem being played. I wonder if mike vick would be considered for the football hall of fame in ten years……. by then dog fighting might be tame
The Truth
July 27th, 2009
1:56 pm
Who cares, talking about pete rose is old and played out.
I like how all of a sudden all stories of Vernon Forrest murder dissapear. “Just another victim of black crime, lets sweep it under the rug and make sure its not on the front pages anymore”.
And this is for the moron who said that London/Sweden had no problem with immigrant rape of white women. Face it… if you read the liberal controlled press, then this type of stuff is covered up and you probably had no idea. Support the BNP!
“The London Metropolitan Police did provide records that showed 108 gang rapes[3 or more rapists] were reported in London in 2008 – from that alone its not exaggerating to state that the actual gang rapes are probably at least double that. Three quarters of the convicted rapists were young black men…
On the face of it, these figures may appear small, but they are nevertheless statistically significant when you consider that nearly three quarters of those convicted were black. Why the incidence should be higher amongst young black men I do not know, but the stats speak for themselves, and on the ground youth workers and community leaders confirmed our conclusions. Sheldon Thomas, a Brixton youth worker, acknowledges that there are a disproportionate number of young black boys involved in gang rape, and it’s something that’s of real concern to him, ‘because we’ve got a situation in our community that needs to be addressed. And I don’t believe that we are addressing it’.”
http://somalilandpress.com/6668/gang-rape-in-london/
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
There you go again, Jeff, deliberately trying to abuse your readers by engaging in taunting and sophomoric condescension. You are the only AJC columnist who does this, and you do it frequently.
The day someone like Furman Bisher acts in such a way to a reader will be the first day. You have a lot to learn Jeff, and perhaps you should consider following Bisher’s example. In terms of taunts hurled your way, you don’t receive half the harsh recriminations that Bisher gets. So, saying you are excused doing it doesn’t bear up.
polskidawg
July 27th, 2009
2:00 pm
Jeff – you are suffering from a case of moral relativism.
As a young person in the 70’s (teens) and 80’s (twenties), my absolutely two favorite MLB players were Pete Rose and George Brett. I’m southern born and raised – not a mid-westerner.
What Pete did, was and still is, wrong. He knew the history of the game and the consequences of his actions. He doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
2:01 pm
Ken — Hey, it’s all in fun. I like the give and take. Besides, I usually only “give” when somebody comes at me with, let’s just say, a bit of a condescending attitude themselves.
Brendan
July 27th, 2009
2:02 pm
Jeff Schultz’s 1:50PM post is spot on.
datominator
July 27th, 2009
2:02 pm
Regardless of whether he voted for or against his team, by gambling at all he opened himself up to manipulation by other invidividuals with knowledge of his activities (”Hey Pete, you do such-and-such or I’ll drop a dime on ya to the Commish”). He has also never displayed even the slightest sign of contrition – after denying it for years, he finally admitted his gambling only when he thought it might get him reinstated, always only doing the bare minimum when he believes he might get something out of it – oh yeah, there’s Hall material for you…
Drew
July 27th, 2009
2:07 pm
Enter your comments here
Sonny Clusters
July 27th, 2009
2:12 pm
We was wondering if you’d condescend with us sometime, Jeff. We mostly go to Lanier and do it but some of us will go to Allatoona in the summertime. We was reading all we could about Pete Rose and we remembered that what he done was wrong and what the druggies done was wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right. That’s why nobody needs to get in the Hall without good character and nobody wants to be besmirched by smirch. Take the AJC for instance . . .
if you had a journalist, a rabbi, and a priest . . .
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
2:25 pm
Fair enough, Jeff, and I do agree there are many posters who come here to engage in that unfortunately vein of interaction. I appreciate you emphasizing it is done in fun and I agree that’s unfortunately one of the things lost in translation with words vice face-to-face interactions.
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
2:27 pm
Question:
If Pete Rose never bet against the Reds, wouldn’t the days he chose not to bet be an indication that he thought they stood a good chance of losing that day?
Gambling leaves open the perception that the outcome of games could be influenced. Whether or not they actually were influenced doesn’t matter. If the paying public ever gets the idea games aren’t on the up and up, they’ll quit buying tickets. Perception is everything.
Brian
July 27th, 2009
2:32 pm
His playing career obviously justifies admission into the Hall. I would also be for reinstatement in spite of the gambling, since it is well documented he only bet for his team. But I don’t think his actions over the last 20 or so years have shown that he really wants the honor. He outright lied about it for a couple decades, and after trouble with the law and with money, finally fessed up to sell copies of his book. Think of it as violating his parole on numerous occasions. So I say no to reinstatement, and not even because of the gambling.
MindSweeper
July 27th, 2009
2:36 pm
Pete Rose indeed DOES belong in the baseball HOF in cooperstown. When I grew up and watched baseball as a kid, I was initially fascinated by baseball ONLY because of Pete Rose. I used to watch the Cincinnati Reds play ball in the ’70s when they had their famous Big Red Machine. When Rose would come up to bat, it was evident that he would ALWAYS get his moneys worth. Even when Rose drew a walk he would hustle to first base; thus the nickname Charlie Hustele was placed on Rose. When Rose would hit a ball in the infield or even bunt if Rose would determine the play would be close, Rose would dive headfirst into FIRST base. Of course, Rose would dive headfirst into second, third and home plate as well. This obsessive husling by Rose was contagious and I think that Rose impacted many players and fans by his outragiously dynamite play. When Rose retired I missed that all out hustle that only he was famous for. When Rose was denied entrance in the Hall of Fame I lost my appetite for baseball entirely. Ive never really followed baseball closely since Pete was banished from baseball. Pete is a throwback to the golden era of baseball and my thought about Pete is that if Rose is denied entrance into the Hall of Fame, then everyone who is currently enshrined in the Hall of Fame needs to be removed, and the Hall of Fame needs to be closed down. Pete is basball and he is the reason why many fans developed the likeness toward the sport. I never would have loved baseball had it not been for Pete Rose.
Sonny Clusters
July 27th, 2009
2:37 pm
Pete Rose would always run to first base even when he got a base on balls and sometimes he’d keep on running against the Braves. They’d go to sleep out there with nobody in the stadium to make any noise. We was reading where Pete Rose could turn a walk into a double. Jeff, you’re old enough . . . did you ever see such a thing?
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
2:42 pm
Sonny:
Not sure but I think I’m older than Jeff (I’m the same age as Mark Bradley). I’ve never seen anybody turn a walk into a double.
Paddy
July 27th, 2009
2:44 pm
Jeff my point is for baseball to remain viable, gambling must be a non-issue with fans. They must believe that the sport they are watching is not fixed and the outcome was never in doubt before the first pitch.
Thanks.
phoenix falcon
July 27th, 2009
2:49 pm
IdiotsREverywhere
if rose was black, he would be in JAIL.
Casey Stinkle
July 27th, 2009
2:59 pm
The man bet on his team to WIN. I got no problem with that. The numbers speak for themselves. He should have been in years ago.
Steve
July 27th, 2009
3:09 pm
No HOF for Rose. As numerous others have pointed out, he knew MLB rules on gambling and did so anyway. Don’t break the rules if you’re not willing to live with the consequences.
MLB began to lose my interest years ago due to strikes. They took another step by choosing to do nothing to a growing steriod crisis; other than sitting back and promoting the home run race between McGuire & Sosa (both who are now known to use steriods – despite their denials).
Entry into the HOF should not rely solely in on the player’s field activity. A person’s overall character should be evaluated as well. HOFers are the some of the people we teach our childeren to look up to. What are we saying to our children if we indicate it’s OK to gamble within your sport and repeatedly lie about it, just so long as you play the game great.
ozone
July 27th, 2009
3:18 pm
Somebody turned a walk into a double this year.
I would keep Rose out. Yes, he was a great player but he bet on the game. In my opinion, you have to look at everything. You can’t just take his numbers and ignore the rest. Besides, anyone that dives into first on a regular basis is a jackass.
Larry
July 27th, 2009
3:20 pm
Jeff,
You conveniently left out one small detail. Aside from expressed and clear violation of a player or manager gambling on baseball, Rose repeatedly looked you and me in the eye and lied about doing so for many, many years, leaving to wonder all along who was telling the truth.
So, as long as they put an asterisk by his name that says “Pete Rose not only gambled on baseball while a major league manager, when asked if he did so he lied and said ‘no’ and repeatedly lied for nearly two decades.”
StingerSplash
July 27th, 2009
3:22 pm
Of course, it was funny to listen to Jim Powell and the Lemmer yesterday on the radio talk about switch-hitting (that’s being a batter from both sides of the plate, not something that goes on in Midtown after dark, por favor) and how hard it was to do and Powell called Chipper the best switch hitter of all time. Good? Sure. Great? Without question. Best? Well, there is that Peter Edward Rose guy, with 4,256 hits all-time. He wasn’t bad, either. As a player.
But his willful and capricious attitude toward the game’s most stringent tenet should deny him the chance to join his brethren of greats in Cooperstown forever.
retired scout
July 27th, 2009
3:31 pm
The bloggers who stated that tne “no gambling signs” are present in every minor and major league clubhouse, and that every player receives a no gambling lecture at start of each season are absolutely correct. The person who equated Gaylord Perry’s “KY Jelly” pitches with gambling on games is laughable. If only you knew how seldom he actually threw such a pitch in a game you would be amazed. He used the perception that he COULD throw the pitch much more than he ever threw it. Also it is like change-ups, cutters, sinkers, curves, etc..some can throw the pitch well and some can’t.
Finally, the biggest reason, IMO, that there is no sympathy for getting Rose in the Hall or back in baseball is that the guy was always a hot dog and a complete jerk…in other words, no one in baseball was sad to see him go, or cares if he ever comes back. Just my opinion.
JT
July 27th, 2009
3:36 pm
Until recently, I was mostly on the side of Rose being re-instated and subsequently eligible for the Hall of Fame. My stance has changed though. No one disputes the fact the man was a great player and a 1st ballot Hall of Fame calibre player. That alone does not gurantee eligibility nor should it.
There were no questions that if you were caught betting/gambling on baseball this was going to happen – no matter who the player was. In a time where we see rules bent for the privaleged too many times I respect this. The Steroid era presents a completely different delima. The two are not like comparing apples to apples. There was no rule saying definitively that if you were caught taking substances….you would be banned for Life. I don’t know the answer on how to deal with the Steroid era but only to say I think the fans/writers will take it on a case by case basis and decide.
If Baseball were to back off of it’s one rule that has been stated, known and never been in question then what does that say about the integrity of the game? Rose was great and what he did wasn’t horribly and yes you can argue which of the two are worse but you can’t argue the fact of which was without a shadow of a doubt 100% clear and that is if you bet on Baseball you are banned for life.
If they don’t care if anyone bets on baseball change the rule, allow Pete in and wait to see what happens. If only they were this stern with substance abuse when it first started occuring we may see a much cleaner game and not be in this mess. Just because its tough doesn’t mean we should say “well we’ve got something worse now so the other isn’t so bad – let’s let him off the hook”. We can’t be so shortsighted and bend the rules because of we happen to be in an era of extreme forgiveness and lack of accountability.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
3:38 pm
Paddy – I complete agree with that part of it, and I get the no-gambling rule, really. Just saying he’s never been accused of throwing a game or betting against his team and I think he deserves to be in Coop-town.
Larry – Yes, he lied. I think everybody knows that. Doesn’t change anything for me.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
3:41 pm
I don’t believe a runner can turn a walk into a double. He is awarded first base so there’s no play. He can wait until the pitcher receives the ball and the umpires resume play and then steal second. But, until the umpire motions to the pitcher to resume play, play is suspended for the bases on balls.
Brian
July 27th, 2009
3:51 pm
Ken, you’re right. The umpire would have to declare that the ball is back in play (presumably the pitcher would have the ball), and then perhaps the runner can catch the other team napping. It would be a stolen base. You couldn’t just run to second on a walk…the ball is dead.
Del
July 27th, 2009
3:54 pm
Put him in the HOF, but continue to bar him from active baseball participation.
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
3:57 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Henry Aaron against Pete Rose being in the Hall? His teammates Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench are, as well as many other Hall members.
Michael Bicknell
July 27th, 2009
4:08 pm
I think it is terrible that Joe Jackson isn’t in the Hall of Fame but he new what was going on in 1919 and was banished from baseball for his actions or rather inaction. When Landis levied his punishment it was the first time that a penalty that severe was incurred anywhere in professional sports (and probably since). At that moment a precedent was set. Rose knew of that precedent and still his arrogance told him that he was above the rules. He bet on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Let the all-time hits leader serve as a cautionary tale to those who think their talent or achievements give them a free pass in a society based on rule of law.
The only reason we buy a ticket or tune in is because we believe the outcome is decided on the field. Take tha integrity away and you sully the name of every hard-working ballplayer that ever stepped on a major league diamond. Take that away and you have professional wrestling.
And if you let Rose in the HoF what then? Would it have been OK for Bobby Cox to bet on the Braves every 5th day when Maddux was pitching. And just because Charlie Hustle never bet on the Reds to lose doesn’t mean that he didn’t change a pitching rotation so he had a more favorable matchup in order to clean up at the sportsbook.
No steroids and no gamblers.
ozone
July 27th, 2009
4:32 pm
Ken and Brian, ball four isn’t automatically dead unless the pitcher threw it into the press box. The runner can try and take second if he wants. If ball four was a wild pitch, the catcher would have to go get it. It’s not dead. A runner took second after a walk earlier this year in an MLB game.
MIKE
July 27th, 2009
4:32 pm
JEFF YOU ARE A MAN WITH PASSION REALLY LIKE ROSE AND HE PLAYED WITH A PASSION NOT SEEN IN TODAY TIMES.. BUT HE DID BRAKE A MAIN RULE INTEGRITY THE GAME DEPENDS ON IT THE FANS HAVE GOT TO KNOW THAT THERE NO BETTING THIS TO ME BETTING IF THE WIN OR LOSE ON HIS ON TEAM DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS TO SAY IF CONTUNIED AND HE HAD A BAD STREAK THAT IT MIGHT HAVE GONE THE OTHER WAY I TRULY DONT SEE HOW YOU CAN NOT CONNECT THAT THIS IS MUCH WORSE ISSUE THAN STERIODS THIS DESERVE A LIFE TIME BAN INTEGRITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE GAME FANS IN BASEBALL HAVE TO BELIEVE IT IS REAL SORRY ROSE YOU MADE THE DECISION AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
5:18 pm
Ozone, I believe you should check the rule book further. Upon ball four, play is suspended. That is why a manager nearly always sends the runners from first in motion on a full count. It is because the outcomes all favor the runners. If it is ball four, then the catcher is not allowed to throw a runner out. Play is suspended immediately.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
9:07 pm
Here are the rules applying to a batter when ball four is called:
6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;
Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.
If, in advancing, the base runner thinks there is a play and he slides past the base before or after touching it he may be put out by the fielder tagging him. If he fails to touch the base to which he is entitled and attempts to advance beyond that base he may be put out by tagging him or the base he missed.
Here are the rules applying to runners upon ball four:
7.04 Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when—
(a) There is a balk;
(b) The batter’s advance without liability to be put out forces the runner to vacate his base, or when the batter hits a fair ball that touches another runner or the umpire before such ball has been touched by, or has passed a fielder, if the runner is forced to advance;
Rule 7.04(b) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.
Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base.
The key term in both the cases of the batter and the runner(s) is they are allowed to advance one base without “liability.” Ultimately, this means that unless the umpire officially suspends play, the runners once they touch their respective bases allowed without liability then submit to the normal rules whereby when the ball is in play in the field, they may be tagged out if off base.
So, I was wrong. Play is not automatically suspended. The proper term is liability.
Ozone
July 27th, 2009
9:14 pm
Thanks for looking all of that up.