[Rich]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

I'd prefer U3 come in, with U1 staying with the ball. Sound like you probably had two staying with the ball, U3 and U1.

But would expect U1 and U2 to recognize the situation and indeed revert to 2 man, then chew on U3 after the game.

Trouble balls IMO are fair foul and catch no catch. I just can't imagine any reason for U3 to go out on such a ball.

Unless of course the ball and or F5 trapped U3, him where he felt he couldn't get in?

I saw a similar play, AAA, Tacoma vs OK City a couple weeks ago.
R1, base hit down the RF line, U2 goes out and U1 followed the play all the way?

As the throw came back into to 2B, it short hopped F6 and bounced away from him into short LF, the now R2 could have and started to 3RD but changed his mind.

I couldn't help notice the reaction of U3 when he realized he was hosed, nearly pulled a hammy trying to recover to cover 3B. I could feel the tension as the play ended with U3 pointing to U1, (who was still returning from near
1B) then to 3RD, then the ole two hand shrug, questioning motion.

U1, I couldn't see his face, but did notice a distinct nod of the head and a slight shrug. Had the runner gone to 3RD, U3 would have been chasing the play, and one could tell he wasn't to pleased about it.

Your terminology has me confused. PU, U1, U2, U3 makes it much easier, IMO.

The plate umpire should've recognized that U1 went with the ball and covered third, recognizing that he would need to get back to the plate in the event of a play there.