What have you got?

[Don Mueller]

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.

Are we going to see "limbo" defined in section 2 next year?

In the situation that began this thread Sa is right, R3 cannot return to 2nd, though it is not always the case. A runner can legally obtain a base then retreat to a previous base as long as the base is unoccupied and the pitcher has not assumed his pitching position.
The fact that R3 cannot legally retreat back to 2nd does not prevent him from being in the 2nd to 3rd baseline. IMHO

F2 is chasing R3 back to 3rd, R2 is on 3rd, R3 overruns 3rd directly down the line. The limbo theory, I think, considers R3 to be equal with R2 at this point, not behind. Therefore, theoretically speaking, R3 is on the bag. As F5 gets to the bag he tags R2, who is standing on the bag. Out or Safe?
Here is the key
R2 can only be safe if you deem R3 to be ahead of R2 in the baseline. If R2 is equal to or ahead of R3 he is out.

I've got two outs and happy.

[SAump]

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

R2 can only be safe if you deem R3 to be ahead of R2 in the baseline. If R2 is equal to or ahead of R3 he is out.

I've got two outs and happy.

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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

I humbly admit that for the moment I stand corrected.

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

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.

[DG]

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?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by DG

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?

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.