Bases loaded, two outs. Batter grounds to third. thirdbaseman elects to tag runner from second. slowly walks to tag him standing close to second base. Runner from first pass him on his way to third, meanwhile runner from third has scored. Does run counts?. I think it does because it wasn´t a force out but a rule´s passing a preceding runner.
would you guys let me know your oppinions and why´s

Never thought of that one. Since the runner from 1B had rounded 2B, his third out would not be a force and would remove the force on the runner from 2B. Unless the defense could nail the BR before he got to 1B, the run, having crossed the plate before the out, would score.

Quick thinking by the runner from 1B to put himself out by passing the runner.

Maybe somebody knows of a rule that permits the defense still to get a force out on the runner from 2B. For example, if BR had hit safely, and the runner from 2B missed 3B, and then the defense got a non-force third out on a following runner, they could still appeal the miss at 3B for a force (fourth) out.

But there's something not right about allowing the offense to commit an infraction that prevents the defense from accomplishing what it would have otherwise. A defender tagging a runner and thereby removing a force on a preceding runner is one thing. Permitting the offense to commit an infraction to its own advantage is something else. What if the passing of the runner was obviously intentional to create a non-force third out?

[Edited by greymule on Jan 3rd, 2004 at 05:00 PM]

The runner doing the passing is out the instant he passes the other runner. This would be a timing play as to whether R3 touched home plate prior to the passing incident.

The status of the appeal being a force or not would not change IF the missed base was a force at the original time of miss. It will then always remain a force out upon proper appeal.

<b>The status of the appeal being a force or not would not change IF the missed base was a force at the original time of miss.</b>

This is true in OBR and Fed. According to the BRD, in NCAA, if the force was on at the beginning of the play, it would remain on (for purposes of missed bases only), even if a following runner is put out <i>before</i> the miss.

Basically NCAA is accepting a TOP force always remains a force on a missed base situation.

There is no way that we are going to allow a run to score in this play. Credit to the poster.. it is interesting, however.

First we need to remember there is MORE to the rule of 3rd out by forceout.. the batter-runner safely reaching first base.

Perhaps B-R did not make it to 1st at time of illegal passing. That would kill the run.

Regardless... as said by another poster.. I'm not going to allow the offense to get a run they would not get simply because R1 runs fast.

Coach: Hey, Mike, bla bla bla
Me: Because

It seems logical. But I could be swayed the other way.. after all, F5 is a DOOFUS too for not just stepping on 3rd.

<b>Perhaps B-R did not make it to 1st at time of illegal passing. That would kill the run.</b>

I don't think so. BR would have to be <i>put out</i> before getting to 1B, not just fail to get there before the 3rd out on somebody else.

I remember this case play from years ago:

Two out, Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B. Charles grounds to F5, who elects to tag Baker running to 3B. Abel scores before the tag on Baker, but then F5 throws to 1B in time to get Charles. Ruling: Fourth out at 1B is recognized, and Abel's run does not count.

The more I think about the play in the original post, the more I think the run should NOT count. The offense should not be allowed to make a deliberate out to gain an advantage. This is quite different from the defense erring and disadvantageously putting the wrong runner out. Suppose F5 had immediately begun to run to 3B for the force, but then the runner from 1B passed the runner on 2B just after the run scored (and before the out at 3B). I can't believe the run would be allowed to score on such a play.

[Edited by greymule on Jan 5th, 2004 at 02:09 PM]

Suppose F5 had immediately begun to run to 3B for the force, but then the runner from 1B passed the runner on 2B just after the run scored (and before the out at 3B). I can't believe the run would be allowed to score on such a play.
Greymule, I don´t think so either. Because a force out take precdence about anything else, (passing, scoring). Indeed the fielder played right making the force at third to begin with. But reading all replays i kind of think that a appeal at third for the fouth out, will cancel the run and still valid

southump: I certainly sympathize, but the problem is that the out for passing the runner <i>removes</i> the force play on the preceding runner. I agree that it seems unfair, but unless somebody knows something further, I think we'd have to count the run.

What is the offense doing that is so bad.... except being smart!

Many people are mentioning that it is "unfair" to use the out on R1 for passing R2..
I ask..... why??

Isn't there a common play (especially at the lower levels) where with 2 outs and R1, R3:
R1 slowly advances to 2nd, kind of stealing but hoping to draw a throw. If the throw is made, R1 will intentionally get into a rundown to delay the tag so R3 can score on a timing play.

Don't players intentionally hit sacrifice fly balls?

Hugo: I think the philosophical difference is that in the rundown play, the defense has opted to try for a putout, gambling that they'll get the out before the run scores. In the case of a passed runner, the offense has deliberately generated an advantageous out that the defense cannot prevent. It doesn't seem fair (to me) that the offense should be able to do that.

That play could happen this way: Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 2 out. Daniels hit a pop to short left. Everybody runs except Baker, who thinks there's only 1 out and stands 3 steps off 2B. F7 is charging but can't quite make the catch and traps the ball. Abel has scored. As F7 is throwing to 3B for the force on Baker, Charles alertly deliberately passes Baker to cause a time play third out and remove the force on Baker.

Apparenly that's legal, but it doesn't seem fair.

Grey,
I hear you.
This came up on another board recently also.
Like here, many posters thought it was "unfair".
It just doesn't strike me as unfair..

at worst, an unexpected fluke and a lucky break for the offense
at best, a brilliant move by a savy ball player!.

I guess we just have different ways of looking at it....

Oh by the way, if I ever see this play, I'll buy the first round!!

If you don't think it is fair, then ignore the passed runner, call the force and third, and if the coach asked say you didn't see the ruuner pass or they got the out before he passed him. I'm a coach and if you did this, I wouldn't br all over you, I would be all over my runner at second who didn't know how many outs there were.

Yes - that's always good advice. If you don't like the way a rule is written, pretend you don't notice things and lie to the coaches so that things can work out the way you thought was more fair, in contradiction to the rules. Great stuff. Please stay away from my chapter.

Well...if you don't like the rule than that is your only option isn't it. Either call it like it says or don't. Just because something doesn't seem fair doesn't mean that we have to change it. Is it fair that you need to get four balls to walk but only three strikes to get out?? Seems the fair thing to do there is have only three balls for a walk or four strikes for an out.

And to the previous post...that was said to show that you can't be worried as an umpire if something is fair or not. Just make the call according to the rules and move on.

Sorry if I sounded offended or annoyed. I know some officials who would have said what you said, AND MEANT IT. That truly bothers me.

Or the guys who "look for outs" so they can get games over with. Had a partner on the bases, top of 7th, visitors behind and two outs, runners at second and third. Ground ball to short and the 1B has to stretch for the throw and pulls his foot. Partner on the bases rings him up. Of course coach goes nuts asking for help. My partner finally asks me, did he pull his foot? I say "Yes he did" and he then calls him safe. Vistors proceed to score five more runs. Home team loses. After the game my partner is all pissed off at me for making that call because we had to umpire for another 35 minutes. Got a new partner after that one.

Good for you!! I hate people like that really. Let the players decide.
I was calling a quarter finals of a JV tourney. Scored tied in extras. Partner got piss cuz I would not change the way I call ball and strikes for the home team to get to get that "needed" run to end the game. Turns out the visitors win it and end up going to the finals to lose in extra innings there.
Call it like it should be called and not what you "need"

"after all, F5 is a DOOFUS too for not just stepping on 3rd."
Which is why we are OF COURSE going to score the run. Also, 'cause we would have to make up a "rule" not to - the run crossed the plate before the non-force out.

run does not count....here's my intepretation and how arrived there.......

since the bases were loaded and the hit ball FORCED the runners to go to the next base...a timing play cannot occurr until each runner has reached the next base safely. so...since the runner coming from second to third had never reached third....he can still be FORCED out to end the inning and prevent a timing play.

if i were working that game, that is what i would have ruled with no doubt in my own mind. how can you have a timing play when not all force plays are not over with??? unless i misunderstood the post.

....let me also address SOUTHUMP's ruling logic. the passing of a preceeding runner ruling is a call made once the ball is no longer live. so, which happens first? the tagging of R2 for the force and final out (that wuld cause the play to end)...or the passing of a preceeding runner? since the FORCE out would have to occurr first, i would rule that is the out that i base my interpretation on.

Hey soonerfan:

The third out was the runner passing R2, NOT a tag (or force) of R2. Doesn't matter that R2 COULD be forced out, he wasn't; and for the real bizaro "what if's ...", the force on R2 was removed the instant he was passed by the following runner, who was instantly out (sorry, no "call made when the ball is no longer live..." factor applies - the OUT happens the instant the runner is passed), so we aren't going to deal with an advantageous 4th out scenario. The only situation where the failure of a runner to reach his base makes a difference is on the batter-runner going to first. If the 3d out is on BR before he reaches 1st, it doesn't matter how BR is out, the run won't score. Except on a BR, the run scores on the time play if it is not a force out.

cbfoulds:

then i guess i am on the wagon with some of the others here...seems pretty odd that the rules have that "loophole" in them. i still contest that what i posted would be what i would have called, allthough it seems to be inaccurate here, because the logic i used seems just that...logical...and i could explain why i called it that way with further confidence. what you typed seems like i would mis-quote it more easily and dig a deep hole for myself.