Clipping:Confusion over a substitute runner leads to a protested game
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Thursday, June 4, 1874 |
|---|---|
| Text | The Athletic Club intend claiming the game which was won by the Baltimore on the Newington Grounds on Saturday last. Their complaint is that the Baltimores violated section 15 of rule VI, in the fourth inning, when Snyder, after striking the ball, ran the bases himself although a substitute was ready to run for him. The only portion of the rule which could possibly apply to their case is that “The substitute shall be the player running the bases.” The Athletics, unfortunately for their claim, did not discover that Snyder was running for himself until he had reached the third base and sent two men home. Then the ball was put to the first base, and the striker might then have been properly decided out under their construction of the rule, but still two men had scored before the third hand was out, and their claim amounts to nothing so far as it could affect the result of the game, Snyder being left on third base and not making his run. Baltimore American June 4, 1874 [Athletic vs. Baltimore 5/30/1874] The Athletics claim the game by one run, and will, we are told, appeal to the Judiciary Committee in consequence of the decision... that gave the Baltimores two more runs than they were, it is alleged, entitled to. Snyder, while at the bat in the fourth inning, asked for a substitute to run the bases for him, saying that he was lame, and McBride consented that Manning should run; therefore, according to Section 15 of Rule VI, Manning was the player running the bases. Snyder made a good hit, and, forgetting that he had feigned lameness, ran himself; Manning, the substitute, only running halfway to first base, and then finding he was outrun, he retired. McBride, immediately on receiving the ball from the outfield, fielded it to first base and asked judgment on Manning’s out at that point; but the umpire decided “not out;” and as this hit of Snyder’s brought home two men, those two runs would not have been counted had Manning been decided out at first base, as the Athletics claim he should have been ; Section 7 of Rule VI covering this point explicitly by saying: “and if the third player is put out before reaching the first base, the run shall not be scored.” Snyder, having obtained a substitute to run for him forfeited all claims to consideration, and therefore the Athletics feel justified in taking advantage of this point. New York Clipper June 6, 1874. See also PSM 5/31/1874 Mr. Martin, the umpire in the Baltimore-Athletic game of the 30th ult., states that he was ignorant of that section of Rule VI which says that “the substitute shall be the player running the bases,” and says he would have reversed his decision had known of its existence. He will appear before the Judiciary Committee when the case comes up, which will be soon, and then reverse his decision. No game can be forfeited by the failure of the umpire to discharge his duties. New York Clipper June 20, citing the Philadelphia Mercury |
| Source | Baltimore American |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />