Another hypothetical

[Larry1953]

Let's say there are runners on first and second with one out and a 3-2 count on the batter. R1 thinks there are 2 outs or he thought he saw the steal sign that R2 did not get. He is off with the pitch which the catcher thinks is strike three but is called ball four. The catcher throws through to second where the runner overslides the bag and is tagged out R2 hangs close to second until he is sure ball four is called and trots to third. Meanwhile F2 throws to third where the tag is placed before R2 reaches the bag. Defense contends R2 is out because he was no longer "forced" to the next base once R1 was called out at second. What is the correct ruling? I think R2 is safe at third and R1 is out.

[bob jenkins]

First, I moved this post to its own thread because it really had nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted.

Second, a runner who is awarded a base cannot be put out by the defense before reaching that base. Since R2 was awarded third on the walk, he isn't out in your play.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

First, I moved this post to its own thread because it really had nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted.

Second, a runner who is awarded a base cannot be put out by the defense before reaching that base. Since R2 was awarded third on the walk, he isn't out in your play.

Exactly, Bob. But in the Texas-ASU game R1 lost his entitlement to 2b and the BR his entitlement to 1b awarded on a walk because the defense "retired" the BR by making an ill-advised throw from Catcher to 2b. In most situations in baseball, the rules don't give advantage to a team for incompetent play. I thought there was a rule that gave the umpire the authority to make a ruling that "made sense" when a situation is not precisely covered by the rules.

[umpjong]

Thats not what happened though. Batter was called out for interference and runner sent back to 1st. There is another thread about this I do believe.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Thats not what happened though. Batter was called out for interference and runner sent back to 1st. There is another thread about this I do believe.

Yes, there is another thread and I'll make this my last comment on the matter since the carcass of the horse is beginning to rot. But the point is that "the batter" was no longer "a batter" after ball four, but he at that moment became "a runner". The rules say that a runner has to intentionally interfere with a throw or a thrown ball for it to be judged interference. If it was the PU's judgment that a batter-runner shifting his weight to begin his journey to first which was awarded on ball four constituted INTENTIONAL interference, then he should spend his summers mowing his grass and stay away from baseball diamonds.

There, I am getting repetitive and that is all I have to say on the play.