What have you got?
 

I had a long talk with Mr. Carlucci the other day, and he was telling me some excellent stories. He was one of the trickier ones, so What have you got?

R2,R3, - R3 in a run down, R2 moves to and is on third base, R3 is retreting 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??

To those who have had this talk with CECE, let the other answer first. Or lets have the debate, anyway.

My Guess
 

R2 is called out for passing a preceding runner. If R3 is tagged while off the bag, he is also out.



Do I win?

indeed you do

I mean is my answer correct? That seems the most logical answer.... but logic doesn't always follow in baseball.

"R2 is called out for passing a preceding runner."

Where and when did R2 pass R3?

It's NOTHING until F5 tags R3.

Bob

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...

Where and when did R2 pass R3?

Good question. Not on the basepaths.

In a similar way: Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker hits a low liner that F4 dives for and traps. Abel mistakenly thinks the ball was caught on the fly and slides back into 1B. Abel chooses to throw to 1B, but Baker beats the throw and overruns 1B.

Nobody out yet.

Of course Abel, forced to 2B, is an easy out, but I don't see that Baker passed Abel simply by overrrunning 1B.

In the original thread, I don't see that R2 passed R3 because R3 crossed over 3B.

(Didn't we dispense with this one years ago?)

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

My try at it...
 

Hey all,

If F5 tagged R3 after he fell off the base, R3 is out and R2 is now on third. R2 can't be out for passing R3 when he is standing still and R3 is retreating, technically speaking, because you said that R3 tripped and overran the bag, but you did not say that he touched it. Let's play more ball...

LomUmp:cool:

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.

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.

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.

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.