Award 1 or 2 Bases?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by CoachJM
jicecone,

Not so fast there! I fear that you and your colleagues came to the wrong conclusion at your meeting.

The proper award in the situation you described in the inital post of this thread is 2 bases for any runners on base at the point in time that the catcher carried the ball into dead ball territory. That is, the BR, standing on 2B at that point in time (if I'm reading your description correctly) is awarded home.

By my read, only DG and, possibly Carbide Keyman (it's not clear from his response if he would award 2 bases from TOP, TOT, or Time that the ball became "out of play") have given you the correct answer to your question.

Let me try to illustrate by putting a "twist" in your inital siutation.

Let's imagine that everything happened as you described up until the point in time that the runner who may have missed home entered the dugout. Let's say he was "loitering" near the on-deck circle watching the play unfold and, seeing the batter arrive safely at 2B, starts walking back to the dugout. The imbecile coach instructs his catcher to throw the ball to the F5 (assuming said runner is returning to the 3B side dugout) so that he may tag the runner. The catcher attempts to comply with his coach's instruction, but, alas, the throw "gets away from him" in his excitement and sails over the dugout into dead ball territory.

What would your ruling be in terms of base awards? (Hint: The correct ruling would be two bases to any runners beyond the last base legally touched at the time the ball left the catcher's hand.)

In terms of the rules governing base awards, the situation you described is no different!

JM

JM, in your situation, where the ball was put into DBT more as a result of a throw than the catcher carring it voluntarily, I agree a 2 bases award would be more apprpriate. However, that was NOT the case.

Also, I don't believe that there is a correct or incorrect ruling on this because as Bob has already stated, "it is not covered". Had there been continuious action on the part of the defense to play on the runners then mabey I would also agree that 2 bases should have been awarded.

Also, it is customary in basesball, when a situation is arises for which no ruling is addressed, to look at the other codes for help. OBR and NCAA plays that are close to this, both deal with players carrying a throw or pitch into DBT. If they fall the ball is dead and all runners advance 1 base otherwise the ball "remains alive and in play", BRD 2005 Sect. 41 pg 39.

Again, correct or incorrect answers may not be possible for this situation however, the one that seems most likely to be correct is a one base award.

For the "if you would have used preventive umpiring techniques crowd", We know, we know, we know. But, we didn't, we didn't , we didn't.

Thanks again, for your inputs.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by aevans410
Intentional catch and carry is the closest rule "by the book" that you can cite. With intentional catch and carry, even though the idea behind it is different, the player exhibits control when he commits the infraction. The problem lies that the penalty from intentional catch and carry is 2 bases from TOP. R2 was at bat at TOP.

You have to award a base (or bases) here though, I agree there.

[Edited by aevans410 on May 11th, 2005 at 08:37 AM]

I think "intentional catch and carry" is a red-herring here. It was put in specifically to close a loop-hole in the FED rules.

Under FED rules, a runner cannot return to retouch a base left early on a fly ball when he is beyond the next base and the ball becomes dead.

So, intelligent F9, seeing R1 stealing on the pitch and passing second, catches the fly ball near the boundary line and intentionally steps out of play to "double up" R1. It's a lot safer than throwing the ball back to F3.

To stop this play, the FED put in the intentional catch-and-carry rule. And, because it was cheating, it needed to be a more severe penalty than the unintentional catch and carry (thus, the 2 bases instead of 1). And, since it's only on a fly ball , all runners would need to "tag up", so the award should be from TOP.

Of all the rules mentioned, I think this is the least likely to be used as a precedent.

[aevans410]

Let me clarify Bob.

1. The catcher carried the ball intentionally to DBT, thus the intentional part. Thats why I made that statement.

2. My comment was directed at CoachJM's theory of awarding 2 bases as if the ball was thrown. I used intentional catch and carry to exhibit control on the part of the catcher instead of a ball randomly flying around.

I didn't know the origin of the intentional catch and carry rule, thats interesting (and makes perfect sense). Thanks for that info. Knowing that though, I now believe "unintentional" catch and carry is a more likely scenario. Thanks for clearing that up to me.

[mcrowder]

I agree with Bob here. The reason for the "intentional" part doesn't apply to this situation. Instead of just "intentional", read "intentionally, to gain an advantage".

Obviously, with no true rule in the books - either 1 base or 2 bases can be supported via other rule-sets and enforced via the God rule. I just believe 1 base is more appropriate here.

[largeone59]

I agree with mccrowder and bob. This is not specifically covered in the rules. I would award 1 base in this situation. I dont think anybody would complain. If you award 2, that's stretching it and you would have a nice little hoop-la to deal with during or after the game.

You could possibly argue to give 2 bases on the intentional catch and carry, but i think this was unintentional because although he entered the dugout controlled, it was out of pure ignorance and stupidity. I dont think the catcher would have gone into the dugout if he knew that there was going to be a base award if he did.


JM- I don't believe your "twist" applies to this situation.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
So, intelligent F9, seeing R1 stealing on the pitch and passing second, catches the fly ball near the boundary line and intentionally steps out of play to "double up" R1. It's a lot safer than throwing the ball back to F3.

[/B]

That is one smart right fielder!

Most RFers I see don't know where to throw the ball on a base hit with R1, let alone this sitch.

Call up the Yankee scouts and sign this guy up!

[jicecone]

Originally posted by thumpferee

That is one smart right fielder!

Most RFers I see don't know where to throw the ball on a base hit with R1, let alone this sitch.

Call up the Yankee scouts and sign this guy up!

[/B]

A player this smart could get easily a $100 million contract with the Yankees.