fly out supersedes declared out ?

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I believe the phrase "that's passing" is an accepted mechanic for professional ball. I know the call is accepted in NCAA and in FED I would use it.

A rules infraction has occurred at the time of passing. This will have a determination concerning the outcome of the play. You must vebalize this infraction. Same as "that's: obstruction, interference, a balk," whatever the case may be. If you don't verbalize the infraction and then go back and enforce it, you will have someone coming out for an explanation. If you call it at the time of the infraction, someone probably will be coming out, but at least you will have an easier time explaining yourself.

I cannot think of why you would not make this call verbal.

You cannot just say "he's out" until you determine the reason why he's out regardless of him being out for any number of reasons. If you call BR out as soon as you see the passing, you now have a time play because of your call. If the ball is eventually caught for the third out, we do not have a time play. BR is out either way, but when and why the out is called has huge ramifications if a run is on the line.

I just went to a College 3 man camp..and nobody said anything about verbalizing " Thats passing"... I'm not gonna say anything, if the ball drops to the ground, i will then call the BR runner out for passing a runner.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I just went to a College 3 man camp..and nobody said anything about verbalizing " Thats passing"... I'm not gonna say anything, if the ball drops to the ground, i will then call the BR runner out for passing a runner.

I hope you learned a lot. Where was this camp?
I work NCAA down to high school and have been to numerous clinics and camps, pro and college. Whenever this situation has come up, it has always been taught to me that you do indeed verbalize it. This is how I instruct others. I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to verbalize at the time of the infraction. Again, this would help you out if skip comes out.

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.

If you point and call it right away, you let everyone know that you did see it.

edited later: Do we wait to call obstruction until later in the play? How about a balk? These are all rule violations that need to be verbalized. The only rule violations we don't verbalize are ones that need to be appealed. ie BOO, leaving early on tag up

[mbyron]

I agree with verbalizing "That's passing!" But there's still a problem here.

The problem is that, like runner interference on a batted ball, the BR is out at the moment he passes another runner. Unlike runner interference, however, the ball is still live. We still need to be able to explain to the offense why this is not a time play.

Clearly, the BR cannot be out twice, once on a fly out and once for passing. Hence one of the outs must be "provisional," in the sense that it won't ultimately count. Which one?

The passing occurred before the catch, but the batted ball occurred before the passing. In every other rule, the BR's status depends on what happens to his batted ball; so I'm going to call the out for passing provisional.

As UmpTTS43 suggests: if the fly ball is caught, BR is out on the catch, otherwise he's out on the passing. No run will score in this sitch unless the ball is dropped and R3 scores before the passing.

A genuine application of 9.01(c)?

[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

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I just went to a College 3 man camp..and nobody said anything about verbalizing " Thats passing"... I'm not gonna say anything, if the ball drops to the ground, i will then call the BR runner out for passing a runner.

This is the correct mechanic for this situation. The Ball is the #1, most important thing in this play, not the passing of a runner. The catch/no catch has to be called first, then if the ball is not caught, the passing of a runner is called as Umpmassa explains. By the way, this is not just the NCAA way, it is the correct mechanic for HS and Pro.

Now, if you are working with a crew of 3 or more umpires, the umpire that sees the passing can say something to the players (as long as he is not responsible for the catch/no catch). This way, at least the players are aware of the situation. He should not declare an out, just the fact that a runner passed another runner. However, if this is a 2 man crew, the OP dictates that the BU is inside and has the catch/no catch responsibility. So the catch/no catch is the only thing that the BU should be worried about. The PU can make a note of the passing but should not be vocalizing anything from his position. As an instructor, I think that the only thing the PU should do here (again, referring to the OP) would be to point at the passing runner and wait for the catch/no catch from the BU.

[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!

[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.

[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!

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

However, if this is a 2 man crew, the OP dictates that the BU is inside and has the catch/no catch responsibility. So the catch/no catch is the only thing that the BU should be worried about.

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

[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!