Clipping:'no strike' on batter stepping forward
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Tuesday, August 20, 1867 |
|---|---|
| Text | [Unions vs. Athletics 8/19/1867] The umpiring of Mr. George Flanly, as in the game between the Mutuals and Atlantics, gave rise to considerable comment, and at times caused very much murmuring among the crowd. He insisted on calling “no strike” on the batsmen who advanced a foot over the home base when striking, and in almost every instance, instead of proving a penalty to the player infringing the rule, the decision of the Umpire operated to his advantage. This was glaringly shown in the fifth inning of the Athletics, when Sensenderfer was put out by Pabor and Goldie at first base, and as he was third hand out, the Athletics would have been white-washed, but the Umpire decided “no strike,” so Sensenderfer took another chance and made his run, and three other runs were subsequently made in the inning. It seems strange that the rules of the game can be so stupidly constructed and construed that the player violating the rule may derive an advantage from it. The utter absurdity of the “no strike” construction was shown by Goldie in the last inning of the Unions, when he deliberately and intentionally stood and batted ball after ball on the “no strike” principle, being put out several times, but still keeping his bat and enjoying the fun. It is true that under Mr. Flanly's construction the “no striker” may suffer a penalty by failing to secure a run one a good fair hit, but the fault in it is that he runs no risk of being put out, and the penalty is not, what all penalties should be, unfailing and inevitable. |
| Source | New York World |
| 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" />