The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 04, 2008, 08:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umpmazza View Post
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.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 04, 2008, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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!
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 04, 2008, 07:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 10:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900 View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 12:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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).
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.

Last edited by Dave Reed; Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:52pm. Reason: to clarify foul ball interference
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 12:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
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!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 01:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

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
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 04, 2008, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 04, 2008, 07:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB View Post
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!
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 05, 2008, 04:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern West Virginia
Posts: 146
Problem solved,

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

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Dec 06, 2008, 12:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigda65 View Post
Problem solved,

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

If the play is a IFF how can we have a B/R passing another runner? The B/R is out as soon as the IFF is called.
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Declared out vs. put out greymule Baseball 12 Sat Sep 15, 2007 04:15pm
declared out versus put out greymule Baseball 0 Thu Jun 22, 2006 08:49am
Interference supersedes obstruction? kellerumps Softball 20 Wed Feb 26, 2003 04:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1