Clipping:Stalling the last inning
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, September 8, 1867 |
|---|---|
| Text | [Athlete vs. Oriental 8/28/1867] The Orientals (their pitcher and catcher) refused to see or catch a ball–their desire plainly seemed to be to prolong the inning until the umpire should be compelled to call the game back to the seventh inning, in which they were 2 ahead. They allowed their opponents to walk their bases. The umpire seeing the uselessness of longer continuing, and knowing of no rule that would allow him to act otherwise, called the game back to the seventh inning, giving the victory to the Orientals, much to the dissatisfaction of several members of that club, who were honorable enough to acknowledge the ball not fairly won. [Champion of Jersey City vs. Oriental of Greenpoint 9/6/1867] The Champions took the bat in the eighth inning, and had made eight runs with none out, when the Orientals came off the field, and desired to have the game called to the seventh inning, their plea being that it was too dark to play. They had several opportunities, in the eighth inning, to put men out, but they refused to do so, as they did not wish to terminate the inning. It was (as every one present knows) but 6 o’clock at the latest when they refused to play. The umpire informed them that it was quite light enough to play, and to proceed with the game, which they refused to do, when he informed them that he would be compelled to decide the game in favor of the Champions, as there was ample time to finish the game, and the Orientals could give no good and sufficient reason for not doing so. New York Sunday Mercury September 8, 1867 the proper penalty for an illegal swing The Rules says, “the batter shall stand when striking.” Some of the “smart” critics hereabouts have contended that this rule may be violated with impunity. In every case of violation, we have advised Umpires to call “one strike.” Mor Bomeisler endorses our interpretation, and will always call “one strike,” and now the Tribune endorses it. That paper, speaking of the game betwixt the Atlantics and Empires, says:–The Umpire, Mr. Green, followed the example of Mr. Martin of the Mutuals in calling “foul ball,” preferring this, which is punishment to the batsman only, [Query–Does it not punish the pitcher?–Eds., ITEM.] to the senseless decision of “no strike,” which is often a punishment to the fielders, as the batter might otherwise be out. But the punishment of “foul ball” is too severe, as the batter runs the risk of being caught out on a ball hit between the bases, without any chance of making his first. The proper decision undoubtedly is that first advocated in the Tribune of “one strike.” By this a proper modicum of punishment is inflicted, and it is strictly logical, as the batsman certainly has hit at the ball, yet has not hit it within the rules; consequently he has not hit at it at all. In future we hope to see this decision universally made by umpires. Its correctness must commend it to every intelligent player. Philadelphia City Item September 7, 1867 |
| Source | New York Sunday Mercury |
| 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" />