What have you got?

[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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

Had R2 arrived on 3B while R3 was in contact with 3B, R2 would be out according to 8-2-7. R2 did not make a baserunning mistake. R2 did what R2 is suppose to do, that is to advance safely as far as legally possible, during a rundown situation. R2 was safe, even if he is tagged while maintaining contact with 3B. R3 was not forced to leave 3B, but he did leave and was caught in a rundown between home and 3B. That is why R3 is the subject to be put out.

NOT AGAIN!

R3 wasn't forced, therefore it's his base unitl he legally touches the next base. R2 being there doesn't change that. If R2 and R3 are touching at the same time, R2 is out when tagged. No ifs, ands, buts, shouldas, or wouldas about it.

[woolnojg]

SA -May I suggest you read 8-2-8 Note.
In this case, R2 would be out since he may not legally occupy the base.
R3 has the base until he occupies or advances past the next base (home) or is put out.

[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 SAump

OP: "Third baseman heads to tag R3 off the bag."
Possession is 9/10ths of the LAW. R3 cannot run to 2B {I see others are having trouble with this, } and he cannot run 3 ft away from the tag and toward home plate either. It would take a miracle for R3 to legally run under or over F5 and regain possesion of 3B. I also assume F5 is competent and does not drop the ball after making a legal tag on R3. R3 is out and R2 is safe at 3B.

You seem to have completely missed the point (not surprising, as the point was muddied by a good number of side-issues).

The point of the original poster (a point I obviously disagree with, but it is the point that is actually under discussion) was that in a sitch like this, has R2 - who has obtained 3rd base - actually passed R3, who is in left field by a few steps. I still say no ... but this contention is the point under discussion. And if they are right, then R2 is out before any tag attempt on R3 even starts.

(In response to what you've said, though, and at the risk of creating yet ANOTHER side conversation ... R3 is not out until he's either tagged, or runs out of the baseline to avoid a tag attempt. And R3 is not out if F5 tags him while he's on the base (which you seem to say, and did ACTUALLY say in a separate post). Falling over the base, by itself, is not enough to call him out. Not sure if that's what you meant to imply, but that's the way I read it.)

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SAump

Muddied over R2 passing R3 are the actions of R3 retreating past 3B. I would add to your argument that R3 cannot legally run back toward 2B by rule. Things may have been different between bases, but a rule prevents R3 from running back to 2B after legally obtaining 3B. That cannot happen. I would also add to your argument that as long as R2 has not passed 3B, then R2 cannot be considered past R3. Like you, I am not convinced that R2 has passed R3 in this situation. Therefore, I cannot rule R2 out for passing a preceeding runner.

I agree the playing action on R3 places R3 in "limbo" until action allows an umpire to make an out call on R3. As presented, R3 must be out by tag and R2 must be safe on 3B. If both runners are considered "safe on the same bag" and both are tagged, then by rule, R2 would be out ( I also agree with you) as the bag belongs to R3 by FED rule 8-2-7 and OBR 7-3.

I hate to disagree with you, since you are kind of supporting my argument ... but I would ask you what rule you are using to claim that R3 cannot run toward 2nd. I'd love it to be true, but I don't believe it's true. He can't run the bases backward to create a travesty of the game ... but that doesn't mean he simply can't run the bases in reverse order at all.

Picture just R3. He gets caught in a rundown, is running from the catcher, gets to the bag and can't stop. He can certainly run back toward 2nd. You're not going to call him out the moment he takes a step toward 2nd, are you?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by SAump

Remember R2 is still on 3B. It would confuse me if I saw R3 heading to 2B.

OBR 7.08 (i) After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call “Time” and declare the runner out;

Yes, I feel the criteria of OBR 7.08(i) has been met. I thought this rule requires a runner to make an attempt to remain on his last legally acquired base or make an attempt to advance onward to the next base. R3 would be declared out for failing to maintain his last legally acquired base and retreating back toward 2B, while R2 has legally acquired 3B.

How is the criteria for this rule been met? At what point is R3 making a travesty of the game or attemting to confuse the defense? He tripped over the bag.
Since he's not touching the bag, and he's not between scoring and third, where is he? That's why I think R2 should be out, he has advanced to a point on the basepaths closer to scoring than R3.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by SAump

R2 while maintaining 3B is out and R3 while in LIMBO is in jeapoardy of being tagged out. That would be a double play. Just perfect if if I was convinced R2 had passed R3 on the base paths. How would you explain this without making UP the rules that Mr. Carlucci knows are not in place?

I think we can agree that thr rules don't cover every situation. So we as umpires do our best to find a rule that we think best fits the situation at hand. I think explain to the coach that R3 was in between 2nd and 3rd, and R2 was on 3rd, therefore, R2 was past R3. That' why R2 is out.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

Remember R2 is still on 3B. It would confuse me if I saw R3 heading to 2B.

OBR 7.08 (i) After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call “Time” and declare the runner out;

Yes, I feel the criteria of OBR 7.08(i) has been met. I thought this rule requires a runner to make an attempt to remain on his last legally acquired base or make an attempt to advance onward to the next base. R3 would be declared out for failing to maintain his last legally acquired base and retreating back toward 2B, while R2 has legally acquired 3B.

What criteria were met?

How was he confusing the defense (not you, the defense)?

How was it a travesty?

I'm really glad you're too far away to ever have one of my games.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by SAump

R2 is on 3B and R3 makes it safely back to 2B.
Do you have anything other than R3 being out?

Yes, I have R2 out and R3 safe on 2nd. R3 can only be called out for running the bases in reverse if he is doing it to confuse the defense or to make a travesty of the game. Desperately trying to get to a base safely is neither of these.

In our case, we have R3 between 3rd and 2nd with F5 between R3 and 3rd. So he is now in a run down between 3rd and 2nd and may legally retreat to 2nd base.

R2 is out for allowing himself to get in front of R3.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SAump

R2 is on 3B and R3 makes it safely back to 2B.
Do you have anything other than R3 being out?

What has happened to require R3 to be called out? Nothing, yet.