What have you got?

[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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just to throw in the reasoning behind my original answer... I believe that a runner has passed a preceding runner on the base paths as soon as the following runner has aquired a position on the basepaths closer to scoring than the preceding runner. My logic fell right in line with Don's post:

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.

Is this 100% correct according to the rules? Honestly I don't know for sure. But just as I can't definitively back up my "guess" that R2 is past R3, nobody else can definitively say that passing a preceding runner has not taken place.

As an aside, this is a question that really 'could' and 'should' generate a great discussion and usually a much deeper understanding of the rules. But if it turns into a pi$$ing contest, who is to gain?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by 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?

From J/R

"Any runner (including the batter runner) is out when:

(3) he is a trailing runner and he
(a) passes a lead runner during a live ball or a dead ball award. A following runner is not out for passing a lead runner if he does so beyond his awarded base and the ball is dead.

Examples:
R1. High pop fly on the infield. R1 is near first base when the batter-runner rounds first and passes him: if the pop fly is fair and uncaught, the batter-runner is out and the force against R1 is removed.

Although the preceding text does not give a cut and dry explanation of when the passing occured, it is most likely as soon as BR reaches a point closer to the advanced base than R1. Can we agree?

Now back to the OP, after R3 overruns third base in a direction further away from home plate, he is now between second and third. At this point R2 is closer to the advanced base of R3, which is now third base, because R2 is touching third and R3 is not.

What do you think guys?

Edited to add:
What did Cece say 3apps?
and why am I unable to get this sitch out of my mind?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by SAump

R3 stumbled past 3B in front of R2.
Yes, R2 is now closer to home, but R2 is also closer to 2B, as well.
Was R2 physically ever past R3?

Then the question is, Physically past with respect to what?" I would say with respect to the advance base. If a BR overuns first base by 15 feet and R1 is only 10 feet past first toward second, this is not "passing a preceding runner." But if he rounds first like the J/R example and is closer to second (and scoring) this is physically past.

What say you SA?

[greymule]

The J/R example is an obvious case. "Rounds 1B and passes him" clearly indicates passing on the base paths.

If BR overruns 1B down the RF line, did he pass a preceding runner whose foot is touching 1B? I would say no, though I admit you could argue that this is a special case.

Abel on 1B. Baker hits a liner at F4. Abel, who had started toward 2B, dives back into 1B, but his momentum is too great, so he fails to hold onto the bag and skids into foul territory. The ball deflects off F4's glove and rolls toward the foul line, away from both F4 and F9. Baker steps on 1B as Abel, lying in foul territory unable to reach 1B with his outstretched hands, gets up and, finally grasping the situation, tries to make it to 2B.

Did Baker pass Abel by stepping on 1B? I would say no. Does Abel have to touch 1B on the way to 2B? Again I would say no.

Now, with Abel lying on the foul side of 1B:

a. If Baker makes any kind of motion past 1B toward 2B, he has passed Abel.

b. Same if Baker stops on 1B with one foot toward 2B.

c. If Baker overruns 1B toward RF . . . that's a tough one, but I still don't think I'd call that passing the runner.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by greymule

The J/R example is an obvious case. "Rounds 1B and passes him" clearly indicates passing on the base paths.

If BR overruns 1B down the RF line, did he pass a preceding runner whose foot is touching 1B? I would say no, though I admit you could argue that this is a special case.

Abel on 1B. Baker hits a liner at F4. Abel, who had started toward 2B, dives back into 1B, but his momentum is too great, so he fails to hold onto the bag and skids into foul territory. The ball deflects off F4's glove and rolls toward the foul line, away from both F4 and F9. Baker steps on 1B as Abel, lying in foul territory unable to reach 1B with his outstretched hands, gets up and, finally grasping the situation, tries to make it to 2B.

Did Baker pass Abel by stepping on 1B? I would say no. Does Abel have to touch 1B on the way to 2B? Again I would say no.

Now, with Abel lying on the foul side of 1B:

a. If Baker makes any kind of motion past 1B toward 2B, he has passed Abel.

b. Same if Baker stops on 1B with one foot toward 2B.

c. If Baker overruns 1B toward RF . . . that's a tough one, but I still don't think I'd call that passing the runner.

If Baker is standing on 1st and Abel is lying in foul ground after retouching and sliding beyond 1st, there is no way that Abel can possibly get to second without passing Baker. Both have the identical line to the next base and Abel cannot get there first without passing Baker. If Abel has to pass Baker to get to 2nd then it seems to me that at some point Baker must have passed Abel.
From a strictly logical perspective this seems irrefutable. If there is precedent or rule that contradicts this logic I'm more than willing to accept it.
If there is not, then IMO it only makes sense to take the rule as stated and deal with it logically.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

What say you SA?

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?

Let's decide who would have been out had R3 also made it safely back to 3B.

Is it proper for only 1 runner to be out and/or occupy 3B in this situation?
Did R3 lose his right to occupy 3B when caught in a rundown between 3B and Home?
Does R2 acquire the right to advance to a proper unoccupied 3B by Rule 8-2-7?
Edited to delete: {I would not punish R2 for the baserunning mistakes made by R3.}
I would properly declare R3 out.

Last edit to bold words in OP and to state that R2 would legally remain on 3B.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by SAump

Let's decide who would have been out had R3 made it safely back to 3B.

Is it proper for only 1 runner to be out and/or occupy 3B in this situation?
Did R3 lose his right to occupy 3B when caught in a rundown between 3B and Home?
Does R2 acquire the right to advance to a proper unoccupied 3B by Rule 8-2-7?
I would not punish R2 for the baserunning mistakes made by R3.
I would properly declare R3 out.

So we start with R3, R2 and end up with both on third base. Since R2's advance was not forced, R3 is not forced to leave the base and it is his. R2 is put out when tagged in this situation (7.03 OBR I don't have Fed in front of me but the rule is the same).

R2 made the baserunning mistake by advancing to a base occupied by a preceeding runner.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SAump

Let's decide who would have been out had R3 also made it safely back to 3B.

Is it proper for only 1 runner to be out and/or occupy 3B in this situation?
Did R3 lose his right to occupy 3B when caught in a rundown between 3B and Home?
Does R2 acquire the right to advance to a proper unoccupied 3B by Rule 8-2-7?
Edited to delete: {I would not punish R2 for the baserunning mistakes made by R3.}
I would properly declare R3 out.

Egads - why do you call yourself umpire? You would improperly call R3 out, and if the coach had any rules-sense at all, you would spend an evening explaining yourself to a protest committee, who would overrule you, and then another evening with the UIC, walking you through this VERY simple rule. You don't get to choose whether or not to "punish" a particular runner - the rule is EXCEEDINGLY clear - R2 would be out.

[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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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..

My definition or interpretation of which baseline he is in is determined by which direction he was heading the last time he touched a base and not where he was physically.
Example: If he's coming from 2nd, touches and overslides 3rd, then I have him between 3rd and home no matter which side of the bag he is on.
If he rounds 3rd going for home then retreats and overruns, stumbles or overslides third coming back then I have him between 2nd and 3rd regardless of which way he stumbles after retouching.

I agree that runners over run and overslide bases all the time, IMO that just puts them in the next baseline forward or backward depending on which way they were headed when they overslid. No need to get the measuring stick out to determine which baseline their closer too.
Whether you agree or not is another issue, but based on my logic I'm sure you see it is very easy to determine when R3 has been passed.
If my interp puts R3 between 2nd and 3rd and R2 is on 3rd, then R2 has passed R3 no matter where R3 is on the field.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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..

Logically I can't get my arms around a "limbo area" unless you can support it with a rule or case or even implied somewhere.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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..

I agree, when both runners are in the same baseline. But when one is on a base and the other is not then something has to give and I don't want to go to war with the limbo theory.
(poking fun at the theory, not the theorizer)