Retired B/R continues to 2B

[scarolinablue]

Had this happen the other night (FED):

R1, R3, no outs. B/R hits lazy fly ball to F7, not deep enough for the runners to tag up. B/R continues running to second base (they are coached to hustle to second on any fly ball), passing R1 who had retreated back to first. The defense almost threw to second to "retire" the runner before recognizing it was the B/R. No other play took place.

Now, as the PU, I call time and summon the OC. I gave him a verbal admonishing to cease and desist under threat of potentially getting a second out should the defense throw the ball in an attempt to retire this runner by declaring such an act interference. He asked if it was an illegal act. Stumped a bit, I said not specifically it drew a throw from the defense. (I don't see anything in the rule book or case book that specifically says a retired runner cannot pass a preceding unobstructed runner, only that a runner cannot do so or be declared out immediately (8-4-2g for interference, but not specific to this sitch, and 8-4-2m for passing a preceding unobstructed runner). So he repeats, "it's not illegal, then?" To which I replied, not unless he draws a throw, at which point I will declare the runner closest to home out due to interference by the retired runner, and potentially I would get an ejection under a "travesty of the game" situation. To sum it up, I told the coach to not get himself in that situation, and to not have his kids running to second base if there are any other runners on base.

Was I pretty close on this one? Again, I don't see this specific situation addressed, but I would think it could be construed as interference should it draw a throw, and I could declare the closest runner to home out. Would an ejection be a bit much here? I think it would and wouldn't likely do that, unless it happened again after instructing the offense to stop, and after that, I might eject the OC instead of the player. OK, maybe that's a bit much.

[chicago11]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

.....Now, as the PU, I call time and summon the OC. .

Why did you do this? What were you trying to accomplish?

I gave him a verbal admonishing to cease and desist .......

again...why admonish the coach for a non-issue

So he repeats, "it's not illegal, then?" To which I replied, not unless he draws a throw, at which point I will declare the runner closest to home out due to interference by the retired runner, .

Over Umpiring.......

and potentially I would get an ejection under a "travesty of the game" .

WHAT????

Was I pretty close on this one? .

Um...no

[mbyron]

The rules explicitly permit a retired runner to continue around the bases, stating that doing so is not in itself interference.

Drawing a throw from the defense is not illegal, and it's up to the defense to know who is out.

IMO, you injected yourself into the game in a way that has no rules support. Has anyone ever told you, "don't be a plumber"?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Had this happen the other night (FED):

Specific FED interp that the play was legal.

[scarolinablue]

OK, I see I missed this one.

MByron or bob, can you provide a reference to the interp?

And Chicago11, I don't usually try to hunt for trouble. It just didn't and doesn't look right to me. I agree the defense should know who is who, but to a guy who is cutting off a throw with his back to the infield, kind of difficult to see which runner is which. But, the rest of the defense, specifically the catcher, should know better, I agree. Thanks for being smarmy.

So, if a throw is made, and goes into DBT or right field, and runners advance, no problem? I'll accept that, just please provide an interp.

[jicecone]

Luckily, you didn't have to toss the HC because you were'nt sure you knew what your talking about.

At times like this , I tend to make a mental note of the situation and as soon as I get back to the car look it up in my books.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice , shame on them.

But the good point here is that you learned two things:

1.The correct ruling.
2.How not to handle a situation like this.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Luckily, you didn't have to toss the HC because you were'nt sure you knew what your talking about.

At times like this , I tend to make a mental note of the situation and as soon as I get back to the car look it up in my books.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice , shame on them.

But the good point here is that you learned two things:

1.The correct ruling.
2.How not to handle a situation like this.

I did try to look it up that night (this was Tuesday night), and couldn't find anything specifically illegal, so I started to realize I was wrong. Honestly, I'd never encountered this in now my 8th year of HS ball, and it just didn't look right to me. Now I know better, and I'm glad I didn't grab an out or worse in the sitch. I'll likely say something to the coach the next time as well, as he's one of the good ones. I just came here for some assistance in my search. I'm glad some choose to help, and others choose to "help" but can't help themselves.

I still haven't located a specific interp - or is this just one of those cases where if it's not in the book, then it's not illegal? If you have the reference, please share. Thanks. I accept that I (almost) blew this one big time.

[scarolinablue]

Found the OBR reference:

Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Can't find the corresponding FED reference. I get it, as long as there is no intentional interfering action by the retired runner, it's nothing. I suppose the fact it just looked wrong tripped me up. Won't make THAT mistake again.

[UmpJM]

scarolinablue,

See FED Case Play 8.3.3i.

JM

[pastordoug]

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a rather lengthy post on this exact subject recently.... I will try and find it....

Well put jicecone. Every game has an opportunity to learn.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice , shame on them.

Perhaps you're thinking of this old saying:

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

[JR12]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

lol Kevin. Thats a qoute by our former president who often goofed up the English language.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Perhaps you're thinking of this old saying:

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I was thinking about it however, on the field if I get fooled because I don't fully know the rule, "shame on me".

If you try and fool me again, "shame on you" because I will know the rule and you may or may not like the outcome.

Now that may not be grammatically, theoritically, techinically, procedurally, literally or any other "ly" correct but, that is what I purposely meant to say.

But thanks for the input anyway.

Kevin, I hate to admit it but, thats probably what I meant. See, there was something he said correct.

[BretMan]

And, please, for the sake of the game, don't trot out the old "travesty of the game" argument anytime you see something on a baseball field that "just doesn't look right"!

In OBR, the odd phrase about "making a travesty of the game" appears in conjunction with one rule- the rule about a runner running the bases in reverse order. In FED it appears twice- once in the same rule about running the bases in reverse order and again in reference to making (guessing at) multiple appeals.

Those are the only times this phrase appears and those are the only situations where an umpire should make any sort of ruling based on "making a travesty of the game". Yet, time and time again, I see umpires trying to apply some imaginary "travesty rule" whenever they see something unusual, out of the ordinary or just plain different happen in one of their games.

"Making a travesty of the game" is an archaic sort of term, but it probably sounded right when this rule was first crafted in the early 1900's. The rule was first put in place to address the then-common practice of a baserunner already on second base "stealing" first base, hoping to draw a throw or confuse the defense enough to allow a runner on third the chance to score. Having a runner advance "the wrong way" was deemed counterproductive to the goals of the sport- indeed, even a travesty!- and this practice was outlawed. The interpretation was subsequently expanded to include a player who runs the bases "clockwise"- from home to third to second to first.

The so-called "travesty rule" isn't some blanket ruling that can be applied to any situation under the sun that looks odd or different to an umpire. It applies to one very specific rule infraction (in OBR, two in FED) that most of us will probably never see in one of our games.