Squeeze play situation

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Um.... you can't "occupy" home plate.

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it.

There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call.

If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play.

But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate.

I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

[UmpJM]

mcrowder & S.D. Steve,

While I certainly get your point that "occupying home plate" is kind of a strange concept, I believe that, by rule, the R3 in TwoBits' original sitch fulfills the requirements from exemption from unintentional interference stated in the highlighted section of 7.08(b) I quoted above.

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

I believe that TwoBits' description was intended to convey the point that the R3 was touching home at the time the contact with F2 occurred. Otherwise, he wouldn't have posed the "variation" at the very end of his initial post.

JM

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

No, the letter, spirit, and intent of the rule is not to force a runner from vacating the only safe space he has in order to keep from interfering with a fielder. Home plate is not a "safe space" in the way that bases are. What would the purpose of a rule saying a runner could stand on home plate and not be guilty of interference be? There's no reason for him to stay there like there is at other bases (i.e. protection from the chance of being put out).

[UmpJM]

mcrowder,

While I would certainly agree with your assertion that the rule allows a (non-forced) runner to remain in contact with a base, I believe it also allows him to attempt to reach an advance base. If he is successful, and is in contact with his advance base at the time contact with a protected fielder occurs, the rule says he is exempt from interference.

In terms of the rule, I don't see anything that suggests home is treated differently.

Have you got anything that says he would not be protected? Because the actual texe of the rule says he is protected.

JM

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

mcrowder,While I would certainly agree with your assertion that the rule allows a (non-forced) runner to remain in contact with a base, I believe it also allows him to attempt to reach an advance base. If he is successful, and is in contact with his advance base at the time contact with a protected fielder occurs, the rule says he is exempt from interference.

Sure it does - I agree... he is exempt from interference while touching his advance base as well - because if he were to stray from this bag, he would be in jeopardy.

In terms of the rule, I don't see anything that suggests home is treated differently.

It's completely different - one does not OCCUPY home plate. In fact, the mere act of touching home changes you from a runner to a runner who has scored (which, in the context of several other rules, merely makes you an offensive teammate, equivalent at best to a coach, and no longer a runner). There is no reason to need to use home plate as a save haven protecting you from being tagged - as once you've touched home, you've scored.

Have you got anything that says he would not be protected? Because the actual texe of the rule says he is protected.

Well, first the rule refers to a base, not to home plate, but I can see where one might use different rules to assume the plate is the same as a base. But more importantly, if a runner has scored, he's no longer a runner - I can't see this rule as saying he's protected anymore once he is no longer a runner.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by nickrego

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it. There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call. If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play. But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate. I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

The rule you mention applies to a runner who has achieved (or stayed on) a base and needs the protection of that base in order to prevent being tagged out. This is why a runner OCCUPIES the base - he can't leave without putting himself in jeopardy. None of this is true about home plate.

The runner in this sitch TOUCHED home plate, but doesn't occupy home plate. If you could occupy home plate, we'd have sitches here described as: 1 out, 1-1 count, R1 on Home, R2 on 2nd. Home plate is not a safe haven like a base is (in most cases). Similarly, if you find 2 runners on a base, one can be tagged out, as only 1 can OCCUPY that base legally. But two runners on the plate is nothing.