[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I never thought 7.03.a was applicable because, well, they were not both on the bag when tagged.

I was under the impression for this play, that as stated in, 7.01, "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base." Which when applying to this play meant Reyes maintained entitlement to 3B until he was either tagged out or gained legal entitlement to the next base. The base is not a safe haven to the following runner just because he is standing on it there.

Now, as far as your scenario, I don't know any supporting rules for or against it except for what I read in 7.01 and 7.08c, if you interpret Laworie (or whatever his name is) as not being on "his" bag because he was not entitled to it. That being 3B.

So maybe the umpire needs to consider the status of the proceeding runner. Just trying to understand it too.

In order to exercise your entitlement you have to occupy the base. If you are not occupying the base then another runner can stand on the base and not be out if tagged unless you want IMHO to read 7.08(c) too strictly.