Runners on 1st and 2nd....batter hits the ball to shallow left field (where it is not caught)....runner occupying 1st advances, runner at 2nd stays....both runners are on 2nd at the same time.
Front runner is out, no tag, no need to touch 3rd. Do you agree?
My thinking is that this is similar to the infield fly rule and the runner will definitely be out, so why slow the game down with the formality?

No, I don't agree. Runner on 2B is forced to third. He must be tagged out, or the ball must be thrown to 3B and the base tagged to record an out. If neither happens, and I am on bases, then me and my partner just stand around until something happens, ever how long it takes. It won't take long for the defense to do something.

If I followed your "he's gonna be out anyway so why waste time" analogy I could go ahead and call three strikes when an obvious inferior batter steps in against an obvious superior pitcher. It just don't work that way. You got to play the game....

2-runners....1 base
 

Well, I researched this further after posting it and found that according to Rule 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."
But then Rule 7.03 says:
"Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out when tagged. The preceding runner is entitled to the base."
http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/of...s/runner_7.jsp
And for those of you following FED rules, they say the same thing.
http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/rules.../index.cfm?m=1,2,3,4,5
It seems these rule are in conflict.
And, DG, while I respect and appreciate your comment, why do we have an infield fly rule in we are not making some ruling in anticipation of inevitable actions?
Comments, everyone, please?


[Edited by gumpire on Apr 1st, 2004 at 10:36 PM]

Re: 2-runners....1 base
 

Baseball rules were written by people who know baseball, for people who know baseball. Therefore, though they seem to sometimes not make sense, the baseball community knows, for the most part, what they mean. This is one where "they" know what it means.

But to further amplify:


Add 2.00 Force play: "A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner <b>legally loses his right to occupy a base</b> by reason of the batter becoming a runner."

So per 2.00 he lost his right to occupy the base.

Per 7.01 he is no longer entitled to it because the folowing runner gained the right.

Bottom line, he lost the right to be there and the following runner gained the right to be there. Therefore, the runner NOT entitled to be there is the one who is out.

In layman's terms, you were evicted from your apartment. The new tennant signed a lease. When he arrives, you are still there. When the sheriff shows up, you will be the one removed from the scene.

Hope this helps.

Rich,
That's in direct contrast to the rule. The rule states that the following runner shall be outr when tageed. The base belongs to the proceeding runner.
Again, we get back to the original issue, someone is out; who, and is a tag (or touching of base if a force) required?
In this case, I called the front runner out, the plate umpire overruled me on the spot (which he does not have the authority to do as I understand it).

The rules stated are not in conflict. The following runner is out when tagged only when he is not forced. Otherwise the runner already on the base has posssession. In example given, force is in effect, since ball was not caught in left field.

The reason we have an infield fly rule, to call a batter out for inevevitable action, is to prevent the defense from an unfair advantage, ie a double play. Consider a major league infielder (or little league infielder), who would be allowed to intentionally let a routine fly ball to fall to the ground. A double play would be inevitable. We are not making the infield fly ruling just because the catch is imminent, to speed the game along, but to protect the offense from an action that has been deemed to be innappropriate by the baseball rules makers.

Now, on a separate subject you mention, I would have issues with a partner who overrules my call "on the spot", without any discussion with me. I have no problem with a partner who has information about a play and after discussion I have the opportunity to change my call. But a partner who reverses me without discussion is a poor partner that I will need to have a serious post game discussion with.

I certainly wouldn't do that. But I would be calling time and coming to you for a conversation.

There is no conflict in the rules.

A force play is a play where a runner (or runners) is forced to advance by a batter-runner. R2 is forced to advance to third.

If you're working HS ball, 8-2-7 NOTE is quite clear that a forced runner can be tagged out while on his original base.

Once a force situation is in place, the original runner on that base is no longer legally entitled to that base -- he's been forced from the base.

You can't equate this situation with the Infield Fly rule. That rule has a specific purpose -- to protect runners from an unfair double play situation. In your situation, because of the force, the lead runner is out when tagged. The runner on first base is forced to second by the batted ball -- surely he's not going to be out.

The baseball rules are full of contradictions, BTW. Rick Roder, a for professional umpire, has written a book containing over 100 of these contradictions. In order to change the professional rulebook (OBR), the players union must agree to the changes. Therefore, it rarely gets changed.

So the first thing a newer umpire needs to do is understand the rules, but in a way that apply to game situations.

The rule that says that the lead runner is entitled to a base when two occupy is quite important, however the rules concerning a force play have to trump that rule here. Contradiction? Maybe. The way it is? Yup.

And if the defense wants to leave two runners on a base and pitch to the next batter? Let them. Nothing in the rules forbids it.

--Rich

ô¡ô

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2004 at 09:27 AM]

Wow to 5 run HR!!!!
Thank you all, I appreciate the information!!!

So, Rule 7.03 where it says "Two runners may not occupy a base..." doesn't forbid 2 runners on a base?

My Oh My, its Grand Salami Time
 

ô¡ô

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2004 at 09:27 AM]

Re: My Oh My, its Grand Salami Time
 

This is another case of being able to read but not comprehending what is read.

Even if there are two runners standing on the base, only one legally occupies it. In other words, if you tag both runners standing on the base, one WILL be out.

7.03 is a rule that, in essence, means that a base is not necessarily a safe haven for a base runner. A runner can be put out, even if standing on a base.

--Rich

If the defense really wanted to be perverse and the offense complied, they could load up the bases with 3 guys on 3B, 3 guys on 2B, and 2 guys on 1B. So the batter could hit a nine-run homer.

It <i>could</i> happen!

Re: Re: My Oh My, its Grand Salami Time
 

Rich, no need to get sh!tty about it!! It was a question and I thought that was the point of this forum.

OTHERWISE, thank you to all (including you Rich), I greatly appreciate it.

I don't know why the defense would not want to make some kind of play if two runners are on the same base. After all, the mission of the defense is to get outs without allowing runs to score.