![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
Quote:
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,
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 |
|
|||
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! |
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
|||
No, unless you are modifying any set of standard mechanics the BU Has multiple responsibilities.
|
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
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." |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |