fly out supersedes declared out ?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by LDUB

No, unless you are modifying any set of standard mechanics the BU Has multiple responsibilities.

The BU's first responsibility is to the ball and the catch/no catch. In doing so, he will probably not see the passing. Come on, LDUB, you've been around here long enough to know that!

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mbyron

My previous post was correct, but this is not the place for 9.01(c). I just realized I'm trying to reinvent the wheel here: the catch is an advantageous 4th out for the defense. Easy explanation after all!

I don't know how you come to this conclusion as the catch is the 3rd out! The catch/no catch comes before the passing runner! The OP states that this is a 2 out situation.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

BR passes R1. No call. Ball drops. Now you call the BR out after the play has stopped. If I am skip, I want some explanations. Especially why you didn't call it right away reguardless if it's the correct call or not. Calling it after the fact is going to lose you credibility in the long run. See it, call it. It will make any discussions with skip much easier.

Skip the runner is out as soon as he passes another runner...ON A LIVE ball... I had to wait for the ball to drop before I can call this... other wise its nothing.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

Skip the runner is out as soon as he passes another runner...ON A LIVE ball... I had to wait for the ball to drop before I can call this... other wise its nothing.

There has to be a better way to phrase this. If the ball wasn't "live", the situation couldn't occur. I understand what you're getting at, though.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

There has to be a better way to phrase this. If the ball wasn't "live", the situation couldn't occur. I understand what you're getting at, though.

your right...I cant see how to rephrase this.... But all the talk about this BR passing the R1... it doesnt matter if he passes him on a catch right

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I don't know how you come to this conclusion as the catch is the 3rd out! The catch/no catch comes before the passing runner! The OP states that this is a 2 out situation.

There are 2 possibilities: if the catch happens first, then the inning's over, no problem.

The problem case is the one where the passing happens first. Then, as I've said, the catch is an advantageous 4th out. It's advantageous because it cancels the run that would have scored if we count the passing as the third out.

By rule, then, we ignore the passing, BR is out on the catch, and no run scores because BR did not reach 1B safely.

What made me think twice on this play is that it's unusual that the "advantageous 4th out" occurs on the same player who made the (apparent) 3rd out. But nothing in the rules prevents that.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mbyron

There are 2 possibilities: if the catch happens first, then the inning's over, no problem.

The problem case is the one where the passing happens first. Then, as I've said, the catch is an advantageous 4th out. It's advantageous because it cancels the run that would have scored if we count the passing as the third out.

By rule, then, we ignore the passing, BR is out on the catch, and no run scores because BR did not reach 1B safely.

What made me think twice on this play is that it's unusual that the "advantageous 4th out" occurs on the same player who made the (apparent) 3rd out. But nothing in the rules prevents that.

I don't see it! Batter hits a fly ball to CF. When the ball is caught, the BR is considered not to have attained 1st base! How can the fly ball be the 4th out? Where the heck are you getting this from? It is a simple play that has been complicated by people that do not understand the rules and trying to prove their points correct. You are more experienced than this, Mbyron. Once the ball is caught, there is no BR any longer and the 3rd out has occurred so the passing never happened (BR can only be out once).

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The problem case is the one where the passing happens first. Then, as I've said, the catch is an advantageous 4th out. It's advantageous because it cancels the run that would have scored if we count the passing as the third out.

By rule, then, we ignore the passing, BR is out on the catch, and no run scores because BR did not reach 1B safely.

What made me think twice on this play is that it's unusual that the "advantageous 4th out" occurs on the same player who made the (apparent) 3rd out. But nothing in the rules prevents that.

I think you're on shaky ground here. A 4th out is, by black and white rule, only allowed if it is an appeal out. Roughly half of the respected authorities (J/R and sometimes the Wendlestedt school) allow the 4th out generally, while Evans demands an appeal.

There is no good reason to think of this situation as a fourth out. There are a number of situations in which outs are deemed to have occurred or not occurred retroactively. For example,

• With no runners, batter hits a high fly ball and is obstructed after touching 1st. If the ball is caught, B/R is out.
• On pretty much any action in which a batted ball becomes an uncaught foul, runners return, and the batter returns to the box. This includes a B/R interfering with a fielder after the ball became foul, and of course, the B/R passing another runner.

So in addition to passing (or passing with less than two outs), other situations exist in which apparent outs are disregarded.

On a caught fly ball, when is the batter out? (he asks rhetorically) Well, we know with two outs, and a runner crosses the plate and B/R touches first before the ball is caught, that the run doesn't score even if no passing occurred. And the run doesn't score because the third out was made [4.09 (1)] "by the batter-runner before he touches first base;"

From this we can infer that the B/R is effectively (but determined retroactively) out before he reaches first. To maintain consistency in our rulings, if there is passing, the catch is still the third out because it effectively happened before the passing. The passing "never happened." [There is a pretty good case to be made that the out happened at the moment the ball was hit, but other rule codes and interpretations dodge the issue by modifying 4.09(a) to say "safely reach first". That avoids the need to think in terms of timing. Similarly, we don't need to worry about exactly when a batted ball becomes foul if interference is called.]

Bob Pariseau wrote on eteamz a few years ago about the necessity to retroactively determine outs. I can't find the post now, but as I recall, he was able to list quite a few situations in which this is required.

[Dave Reed]

It's implied in my last post, but let me state explicitly that a batter's status is also declared retroactively when he hits a ball that is uncaught. When he hits the ball, he apparently becomes a B/R. If the ball becomes fair, his status is confirmed as a B/R, and whatever he did/does as B/R "happened". If the ball becomes foul, his status reverts to batter, and in effect, he never was a B/R.

Excepting bunts with two strikes, of course!

[UmpJM]

I would say that Dave Reed has an excellent grasp of some of the unusual characteristics of the time-space continuum as it exists within the context of a baseball game.

And, I concur with his conclusion that there is no need to use the construct of the "advantageous 4th out" to properly rule on the play in question.

Though, if that logic does help some with making the correct call on the play, I don't really see a problem with it.

JM

[UmpTTS43]

I agree with most replies in this OP. I understand that we are limited in what we are reasonably expected to see in a two man crew. My only contention is that if the passing is observed, it should be vocalized. When a violation has occured and is observed, it should always be vocalized at the time of the infraction. That is my only point.

[bigda65]

Problem solved,

Do it like the IFF, Vocalize B/R out for passing if uncaught and fair.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I agree with most replies in this OP. I understand that we are limited in what we are reasonably expected to see in a two man crew. My only contention is that if the passing is observed, it should be vocalized. When a violation has occured and is observed, it should always be vocalized at the time of the infraction. That is my only point.

That may be your only point, but it is not always the correct practice.

Do you vocalize a missed base at the time of "infraction?"

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Ump153

That may be your only point, but it is not always the correct practice.

Do you vocalize a missed base at the time of "infraction?"

Maybe I should explain. You do not vocalize an infraction when it is an appeal play. This is not an appeal play so it should be vocalized. If you have read this thread, you would have known that I have been refering to the play in the op. I don't want to pick boogers, but I do know what I am doing.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Maybe I should explain. You do not vocalize an infraction when it is an appeal play. This is not an appeal play so it should be vocalized. If you have read this thread, you would have known that I have been refering to the play in the op. I don't want to pick boogers, but I do know what I am doing.

Excuse me. I have followed this thread. That's where I read your statementL "When a violation has occured and is observed, it should always be vocalized at the time of the infraction."

Not being a mind reader, I took you at your words.

I'm happy that you know what you're doing. Now if you only knew what you were saying.