What have you got?

[archangel]

I agree, I dont think R2 passed the preceding runner. Its a similar situation as when 2 runners end up on the same base.....in this case, since R3 ran back to 3rd and overran toward the outfield, I'd call R3 out-- for out of the baseline..no need to tag...

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by archangel

I agree, I dont think R2 passed the preceding runner. Its a similar situation as when 2 runners end up on the same base.....in this case, since R3 ran back to 3rd and overran toward the outfield, I'd call R3 out-- for out of the baseline..no need to tag...

Really? And what rule do you use in your defense when I protest your "OUT" call? If R3 is not tagged, and is not avoiding a tag, he's not simply out for stumbling past the base. You aren't called out for being "out of the baseline" ever, and you aren't called out for being out of the basePATH unless you are avoiding a tag.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by PWL

Ah, does R3 have retreat rights?

Not sure... let me look in the "Retreat Rights" section of the rulebook.

[mcrowder]

Can't see how you can rule R2 out for passing R3 on this play unless R3's stumble took him CONSIDERABLY toward 2nd base (completely and unmistakenly behind R2 if viewed from, say, PU's vantagepoint). A simple stumble up the 3rd baseline doesn't put him "behind" 3rd base - it just puts him OFF 3rd base and liable to be tagged.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by PWL

R2 is ninety feet from home plate and R3 is what, niney five feet from home plate? Do the math, physics major.

That's just flat out stupid. Sorry Mr. Moderator - I have no better word for it.

You don't measure the distance from a particular base to determine whether a runner has passed another runner (and if you did, you could use the same logic from 2nd base in this case and get the reverse answer - R2 is 90 feet in front of 2nd base, R3 is (since he's diagonal) some 92-93 feet from 2nd - so by your logic, PAST R3).

You simply look at the line between 2nd and 3rd (in this case), ignoring how far left or right of that line the runner may be - if R2 is COMPLETELY past R3, he's out (and remember - he must be 100% beyond the runner he has supposedly passed to be considered past him.)

From that perspective, on this play, R2 has not passed R3 unless R3 took a rather wide turn toward 2nd base during his stumble.

PS - you send me the page number that lists the words "retreat rights" and I'll send you a hundred bucks. Throw profanity my way if you have to sink to that level, since you have no leg to stand on with this. There's no such thing. Other than "running the bases in reverse order in order to create a travesty of the game", there is nothing that says a runner cannot move backward on the basepaths. (There are specific cases where if a runner did so to avoid a tag, it could be illegal ... but not anything that could be applied to THIS play).

PPS - my calculator and my physics book don't have the number "niney" in it.

[greymule]

R2 is ninety feet from home plate and R3 is what, ninety five feet from home plate? Do the math, physics major.

And a pop that falls 4 feet behind the pitcher's plate has "passed a base."

[ctblu40]

My outgoing e-mail:

A situation has presented itself during a discussion on a message board that has seemed to reach a stalemate. I was wondering if you could offer some guidance. The situation is this:



R2,R3, - R3 in a run down, R2 moves to and is on third base, R3 is retreating to third, stumbles as he gets to third, trips and heads past third toward the outfield, over running the bag, Third baseman heads to tag R3 off the bag. Whats the call??



My response was that R2 should be called out for passing R3, and if R3 is tagged off the bag, he too should be called out.



Another poster replied that "(I) Can't see how you can rule R2 out for passing R3 on this play unless R3's stumble took him CONSIDERABLY toward 2nd base (completely and unmistakenly behind R2 if viewed from, say, PU's vantagepoint). A simple stumble up the 3rd baseline doesn't put him "behind" 3rd base - it just puts him OFF 3rd base and liable to be tagged."



What would the correct ruling be?

And the reply....

The person who posted the opinion near the end of your email is exactly right. The only way R2 would be out for passing is if he moved his body to the home plate side of third base while R3 was off the base toward left field OR R3 returned behind R2 in the direction of second base. It is of course umpire judgment as to whether R2 passed R3, but in the way it is described, he has not.



Hope that helps,

Rick

mcrowder, SAump and the rest......

I bow to you and am humbled by your presence.... now where's my plate of Crow?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

My outgoing e-mail:


And the reply....



mcrowder, SAump and the rest......

I bow to you and am humbled by your presence.... now where's my plate of Crow?

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by PWL

R2 is 100% past R3 in this play because R3 retreated back past 3B. It's that freakin' simple.

If it was actually that simple, we wouldn't disagree, would we. I can't see how any sane umpire would think that R3 stumbling past third base, down the LF line is retreating toward 2nd base - which is what he'd have to be doing for R2 to be past him.

In reality R2 is now R3 since he standing on the base.

No ... until the end of the play, all runners retain their original nomenclature - otherwise describing any play where runners advance at all becomes completely chaotic. Then again ... I have no idea why you even said this, as it does not give any insight into the actual answer to this question.

But he becomes an out when the original R3 retreats past 3B and in rule book actuality is returning to 2B. We are going forward on the bases, not backwards.

Here is the crux of the question. I fail to find anything in the book to support this supposition - that falling into the outfield is "in actuality returning to 2B". Let's ask it this way - absent any other runners, if you have a runner run toward third and fall into the outfield - and the ball gets away, do you require a retouch of third base on the way home? The rest of us don't - which kind of dismisses the notion that he's returning to 2nd by landing in left field. If you have ANY rules or casebook basis for claiming that this runner is technically returning to 2nd, I'd love to see it - we might have something to discuss. Lacking that, I think I'm done here.

Perhaps you are visualizing the runner falling much further toward 2nd base than I am - and in my original post I did say that if he was far enough toward 2nd that from, for example, PU's vantagepoint, R3 becomes further to the right than R2, then I would agree with your call. But if he's not - merely falling into LF does not equate to returning to 2nd base.

[bob jenkins]

Before this gets too personal, let me say that this very play (or at least concept) was the discussion of much debate (and probably name calling) many years ago on either this or "another" forum. The protagonists were drawn from the usual suspects at that time -- Carl Childress, me, Warrenn Willssonn, Yaworski, Eric Barkhuis, Garth, ....

I don't recall the resolution, if there ever was one.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Before this gets too personal, let me say that this very play (or at least concept) was the discussion of much debate (and probably name calling) many years ago on either this or "another" forum. The protagonists were drawn from the usual suspects at that time -- Carl Childress, me, Warrenn Willssonn, Yaworski, Eric Barkhuis, Garth, ....

On which side of the argument were the "pro"tagonists?

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Here is the crux of the question. I fail to find anything in the book to support this supposition - that falling into the outfield is "in actuality returning to 2B". Let's ask it this way - absent any other runners, if you have a runner run toward third and fall into the outfield - and the ball gets away, do you require a retouch of third base on the way home? .

The way I see it there's no rule allowing a runner to over run any base but
1st and that's a one time option for BR. Therefore a runner can only be in one of two places.
1. Occupying a base or
2. Between bases

There is no runners purgatory, there's only two choices.

If R3 has retreated past 3rd he is no longer between 3rd and home. he is not on 3rd therefore he is between 2nd and 3rd. It doesn't matter that he is on the 3rd base line he is between 2nd and 3rd by rule.
If he is between 2nd and 3rd he certainly must retag 3rd to go home. If he has to retag 3rd and r2 is on third then r2 must have passed him by rule.
If there is somewhere else a runner can be besides between or on a base I'm open to learn and rethink my position.

[greymule]

I still say one runner must physically pass the other in the base path. If R3 stumbles past 3B and falls 4 feet behind the bag, and R2 is advancing toward 3B, when does R2 "pass" R3? When R2 gets within 4 feet of 3B? If both R3 and R2 are scrambling to 3B, do we call R2 out when his distance from 3B is less than R3's?

To me, even if R3 retreats to 3B and continues 10 feet down the LF line, he's still on 3B for the purposes of being passed.

If R3, retreating, overran 3B and did not move toward 2B, I would not require a touch of 3B if he then proceeded home.

I would call plays according to these interpretations. Unfortunately, I see no case play in J/R, PBUC, BRD, or Annotated Rule Book, so all us arguing our conception of what constitutes "passing" is probably not going to accomplish much.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

The way I see it there's no rule allowing a runner to over run any base but
1st and that's a one time option for BR. Therefore a runner can only be in one of two places.
1. Occupying a base or
2. Between bases

There is no runners purgatory, there's only two choices.

I see your logic, but can't agree with it. There's nothing in the book at all that addresses or implies that a runner cannot overrun a base - it happens all the time. The logic of saying that a runner is ALWAYS either occupyign a base or between bases is faulty. Consider a normal R2 that accidentally overruns 3rd base. Say he overruns slightly to the left - ok, I can see you saying he's (2) between 3rd and home. Say he overruns it directly ahead - since he's not occupying a base, by your logic he must be between bases. Which bases? 3rd and home? I don't see that, but say you're right. Now what about if he overruns it slightly to the right? What bases is he between now? What about 45 degrees to the right - he's equally not between home and 3rd and not between 2nd and 3rd. He's obviously "beyond" third - but lets say he decides to run to either 2nd or home --- to which direction would you require a retouch ... and if another runner ran up behind him to 3rd base - how could you call that runner out for passing? At what angle do you start considering this runner as being between 2nd and 3rd.

Yeah - horribly long paragraph, and I apologize. My point is, however, that there IS a limbo area where a runner inadvertently overruns a base and is neither (1) occupying a base nor (2) between two specific bases.

I brought this scenario to a couple of higher ups - and it generated some interesting conversation ... but the consensus seemed to agree that to call a runner out for passing, that runner must be physically beyond the preceding runner with respect to a specific baseline - in other words, draw a straight line between bases, ignore how far from that line in a perpendicular direction a runner has strayed, and simply rule whether the succeeding runner has advanced fully beyond the preceding runner with respect to that line. Distance away from a specific base shouldn't come into play, only distance away along the baseline.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by PWL

A retouch of third would be an appeal for the defense would it not? Yes, if he has run back past the bag I would require the runner to retouch the base.

Why?

If a runner runs back past 2B into the right field territory and the ball is overthrown, do you simply let him run to 3B without retouching 2B?

Right field? Yeah - probably. Center field? No ... again - why. I would only require a retouch if he actually made progress toward the previous base. If he fell, or whatever, away from 3rd, but not toward 1st, I see no reason, logic, or rule to require him to touch 2nd again - he's already touched it, and has not "Passed" it in reverse.

The same principle should apply here.

I agree with that - we disagree on the principle though.

What part of running the bases in order do you not understand?

Look - I'm trying to be patient and non-insulting with you, but this sort of comment is the reason no one else deals with you. that was unnecessary.

I don't need a casebook, this is pretty much textbook.

No, it's obviously not - and "because I said so" is not reason enough in my book. It's not just me, although the rest of the bunch that said R2 was not out for passing in the OP have stopped responding, probably because they have less patience than me ... (or possibly are just wiser than I in dealing with futility).