fly out supersedes declared out ?
 

strange situation, but possible.
sit : bases loaded, 2 outs, 3-2 count.
Runners are running on the pitch, except R1 who thought, there’s just one out. The batter lifts a high fly ball into RF. AFTER R3 touched home plate and before the ball was caught, the BR passed R1 and the umpire declared the BR out (3rd out) for passing another runner.
Since a declared out, is not a force out, may R3 legally score ?
Does the fly out automatic supersede the declared out (on the same player) ?

regards

That base has not legally been attained by the B/R because R1 has not advanced (it's still R1's)(think of what happens when 2 runners occupy 1 base...who is out?...th)...therefore he has not reached first before the third out and no run scores

At the time of the pitch, bases were loaded which forces all runners to advance, no matter what. This means that the fly ball caught is the 3rd out, no run scores because the BR did not attain 1st base. The situation with R1 not running means absolutely nothing here.

Think it through
 

Guys... this is easy. It is not passing until the ball is dropped and in play. B/R has not acquired a base yet. The passing is not the third out. The FIRM AND SECURE POSSESSION AND VOLUNTARY RELEASE of B/R fly ball is.

just got the answer :
From J/R
"After batting an airborne ball, the batter-runner could pass a lead runner before the catch. Such batter-runner should only be called out if the ball is fair and uncaught (regardless of whether he has returned to a position behind the lead runner)."

thanks

My mechanic on this would be to point at the BR and say "that's passing." After the outfielder has complted his play, catch or no-catch, I would make the appropriate call. On a catch, I would vebalize "that's a catch." On a drop, "no catch. you, pointing to BR, are out for passing." If a coach decides to come out in either situation, I would stop him and confer with my partner just to make sure we were on the same page.

That's why some of us come here. Thanks, 43

I would like to ask
 

"That's passing!"
Is the verbal call above recognized by MLBUM, NCAA or FED?

I wouldn't be excited about verbalizing that call in public.
Why explain why aloud? Giving way too much info.
Ozzy nailed it. "He's out!"

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.

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

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)?

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.

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!

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! :D

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. :confused:

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.

Problem solved,

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

:D

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.

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. :rolleyes:

Alright, I'll give you that.

You sure you're not my wife? Sound just like her.:D

Where I live, that kind of an arrangement is now prohibited by the state constitution.

A 4th Dimension to Passing
 

Same situation, batter hits a HR instead of a fly out, passing occurred. The out is recognized during a stoppage of time. [7.08h]

For the record on OP fly out, home plate was never legally obtained by the runner. The runner must return and touch 3B. Three outs officially ended the half-inning. This point about a possible apparent, advantageous 4th out is now moot. [2.00 Retouch]

OP. Dropped ball, passing, RF throws to 2nd for the force. No run scores.
{Note: I doubt passing effectively removes the force out on R1 at 2B. [7.08e]}

OP. Dropped ball, passing, all runners safely reach advanced base. Run scores. Half-inning ends.
{Note: Passing "effectively" becomes 3rd out of the half-inning. [7.08h]}

Passing in "effect" is treated as a delayed, dead ball penalty on the offense. [9.01c]

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.

Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible given how I'm feelign this morning and the amount of OTC drugs in my system, you're 0 for 3.

~Sigh~
 

Actually Bob, to be brutally honest, "SA" is 0-for-his career on this site.

Regards,

Timing
 

You were correct, again. You never miss anything.
I was missing something from each scenario I presented. BRD 416.
I was wrong, 0-fer-3.