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.

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

Why?

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

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.

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).

I'm with PW on this one.
If R2 is on third and R3 has not scored, is not between home and third nor is he on third, then my logic tells me he is behind R2. R2 is out and R3 is at risk.
It's the most logical call, easiest to explain and therefore easiest to sell of all the options available. Gets my vote

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.

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:

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?

From J/R

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? :confused:

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

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?

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.

I return to OP
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

Anyone want Rick Roder's ruling?
 

I just received an e-mail back from Mr. Roder with an answer to this question... interested?

ctblu40,

Quit teasing and spill the beans!

I'd be very curious to hear if Rick was able to make any sense of this thread.

JM

Ok... here it is!
 

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?:mad:

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.

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.

You're right - until SOMEONE grasps that simple concept, you will argue with us all day. Hint: Yes it is. (And no rule says anything about the runner having to run directly on the baseline, or take 90 degree turns.)

The BASE LINE is the direct line between bases. The other thing you have described is the basePATH, and is a completely different thing.

And I think this one finally pushed me over the edge. I vow to no longer engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

No, the rule requires no such thing. If it meant that - it would be more simple, and just say, "If after he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order, the runner is to be declared out." There is a REASON for the dependent clause that appears after that in the rule. If the runner is running the bases in reverse to make a travesty of the game, call him out. If he's doing it to confuse the defense - call him out. Neither the OP nor my other sitch are intentional efforts to confuse or make a travesty. In my other sitch, he's retreating (legally, I might add) to avoid being tagged, and it's completely legal.

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

OBR may already address limbo
 

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.

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.

Stick with the play at hand.

R3 didn't go back to 2B - he tripped over 3B and fell toward the outfield. You invented the R3 returning to 2B out of the murky depths of your imagination - in which case you could call R2 is out for passing R3 and leave R3 at 2B.

Or maybe just to you.

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.

R3 cannot retreat back to 2nd in this sitch. He's out for abandonment.

Rule 7.01 Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

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.

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.

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?

Hey all,

3Apples, what did Cece say about this?

LomUmp:cool:

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.

The pitcher has not assumed his pitching position ... play is still ongoing.

Since R3 is R3 and not R2, the pitcher has assumed a position with the runner in question on third base.

Ok here it goes, Cece says the same as the first poster R2 is out for over running the precedding runner, Why you say??

He answers this with a question, same play, R3 trips on third to the outfield side, However the throw is an overthrow, and R3 proceeds to head Home, DOES HE NEED TO RETOUCH THIRD?? -- Yes he does, Therefore he must have retreated, and now R2 is infront of him. This is a fun debate, and after listening, I think I agree with Cece. Also Cece says he and Roder have argued on this rule before.

But that's not what the rule says. It doesn't say "and the pitcher has assumed his position." It says "and the pitcher assumes his position." The pitcher must be in position for this rule to apply.

OOOOFFFF! This thread is making my head hurt!:(

What no rebuttal to Cece's take on the play??

I'm all for Cece on this one, though I did say I would conform to Roder. but like any good democrat I retain the right to flip flop at any moment, so I'm officially back to Cece.

As far as rebuttal, we were kinda doing that even before Roder and Ceces opinions came out. They've just confirmed what a lot of us determined 2 or 3 pages ago, that this is not a black and white issue.