OBR may already address limbo
 

OBR 7.12 Unless two are out, the status of a following runner is not affected by a preceding runner’s failure to touch or retouch a base.

I choose to withhold comments on double play alternative.

Read the post with Roder's response to refute most of what you said. I'm only commenting to refute this final sentence. PLEASE don't call it this way. R2 must be AHEAD of R3, not "equal to or ahead". In fact, it's been taught in numerous clinics that R2 must be COMPLETELY ahead of R3 - ANY overlap at all and there is no out yet. the example given in one clinic I attended was BR and R1 hugging and spinning in a circle after a home run. BR, in that case, was never 100% AHEAD OF R1, even though the majority of his body was, and there is no out here.

Stick with the play at hand.

R3 didn't go back to 2B - he tripped over 3B and fell toward the outfield. You invented the R3 returning to 2B out of the murky depths of your imagination - in which case you could call R2 is out for passing R3 and leave R3 at 2B.

Or maybe just to you.

TIME!

Don't bow to SAump yet - he said R3 is out IF THEY"RE BOTH TOUCHING 3B. That isn't the question posed ro Roder.

R3 cannot retreat back to 2nd in this sitch. He's out for abandonment.

Rule 7.01 Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

Thanks for the heads up, I do realize that between the bases the following runner must completely pass.

The equal to was meant only in this situation where R2 was standing on third.
If R3 is equal to he must be deemed as on third as well, therefore R2 would be out if tagged.

I humbly admit that for the moment I stand corrected.

Roder may come to his senses in the future, until then I'll conform

Not that I disagree with Rick in this instance, in fact, I do agree with him, however, it is best to remember that he is not a member of the rules committee. Rather, he is an employee of the umpires union, not the MLB.

His opinions, in those cases when he does not poll the MLB umps, or quotes the MLBUM or casebook, are just that, his opinions. And, while he has a much more intensive background in the rules than most, he has been wrong.

Why does anyone want to rule R2 out who is merely in contact with 3b when R3 stumbles past 3b toward LF? That's what I want to know?

Hey all,

3Apples, what did Cece say about this?

LomUmp:cool:

Because I thought that this put R2 ahead of R3 on the basepaths... I was wrong, and have admitted my mistake. That's why I love this forum... a deeper understanding is always reached.

Now I only have a couple more bites of crow left... tastes like chicken.

The pitcher has not assumed his pitching position ... play is still ongoing.

Since R3 is R3 and not R2, the pitcher has assumed a position with the runner in question on third base.

Ok here it goes, Cece says the same as the first poster R2 is out for over running the precedding runner, Why you say??

He answers this with a question, same play, R3 trips on third to the outfield side, However the throw is an overthrow, and R3 proceeds to head Home, DOES HE NEED TO RETOUCH THIRD?? -- Yes he does, Therefore he must have retreated, and now R2 is infront of him. This is a fun debate, and after listening, I think I agree with Cece. Also Cece says he and Roder have argued on this rule before.