fly out supersedes declared out ?

[_Bruno_]

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

[umpjayfire]

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

[ozzy6900]

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.

[Maz17]

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.

[_Bruno_]

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

[UmpTTS43]

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.

[Kevin Finnerty]

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

[SAump]

"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!"

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

"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.

[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)?

[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!

[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.