interesting run down situation

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

That's absolutely wrong.

If both runners are on the bag, the following runner is out, no matter what order they're tagged (unless it's a force-play situation, when the preceding runner is out.)

In a non-force situation, if only one runner is on the bag and he's tagged, he's not out. Reyes was entitled to occupy 3rd until he advanced or was put out, but he has to actually be occupying it in order for the following runner who is also occupying it to be put out.

I agree with your first statement. Give me some reference to support your second.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I agree Lawrie started from first so technically he is R1.

This was not a force play so Reyes was legally entitled to 3B (7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.) not Lawrie.

7.03 (a) Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out when tagged and the preceding runner is entitled to the base, unless Rule 7.03(b) applies.

Now Lawrie and Reyes were not on the bag at the same time and Lawrie was not legally entitled to be there because Reyes was not yet "put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base". Had the fielder tagged Reyes first then Lawrie, Lawrie would have been safe.

Now either I did a bad job of explaining myself or I am totally reading something different than what the rules say and I am certainly open for correction.

So, earlier, while Reyes was further from 3B in the rundown and not yet scored, the defense could have quit playing on Reyes and tagged Lowrie while he was on 3B for an out?
Do we now have to check if a preceding runner has acquired the next base before we rule a following runner safe on the bag as he beats a tag?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by umpjim

So, earlier, while Reyes was further from 3B in the rundown and not yet scored, the defense could have quit playing on Reyes and tagged Lowrie while he was on 3B for an out?
Do we now have to check if a preceding runner has acquired the next base before we rule a following runner safe on the bag as he beats a tag?

"And if the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars" and What if they never play the game.

If I am wrong and you know the ruling that can correct what I am saying, Go for it and explain it instead of being a wise a**. I'm not to proud to say I might be wrong.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

"And if the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars" and What if they never play the game.

If I am wrong and you know the ruling that can correct what I am saying, Go for it and explain it instead of being a wise a**. I'm not to proud to say I might be wrong.

Non of the provisions of 7.03(a) were present, based on what we see in the video although the calling umpire might have seen it differently.
So if we say that Reyes wasn't touching (occupying) while Lowry was tagged while touching (occupying) you can't use 7.03(a) for anything.

You can use 7.08(c) to call Lowry out for being tagged off of "his" base if you read that rule literally. However Wendelstedt in his manual changes the wording to "a" base and NCAA calls it "the" base.

Otherwise, being a wise a** again, how would you rule in my presented scenarios. There are other such scenarios where your interp would require an umpire to check on the status of a preceding runner before ruling.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by jicecone

"And if the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars" and What if they never play the game.

If I am wrong and you know the ruling that can correct what I am saying, Go for it and explain it instead of being a wise a**. I'm not to proud to say I might be wrong.

He wasn't being a wise ass at all. He's asking you a legitimate question in response to your posted interpretation.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Non of the provisions of 7.03(a) were present, based on what we see in the video although the calling umpire might have seen it differently.
So if we say that Reyes wasn't touching (occupying) while Lowry was tagged while touching (occupying) you can't use 7.03(a) for anything.

You can use 7.08(c) to call Lowry out for being tagged off of "his" base if you read that rule literally. However Wendelstedt in his manual changes the wording to "a" base and NCAA calls it "the" base.

Otherwise, being a wise a** again, how would you rule in my presented scenarios. There are other such scenarios where your interp would require an umpire to check on the status of a preceding runner before ruling.

I never thought 7.03.a was applicable because, well, they were not both on the bag when tagged.

I was under the impression for this play, that as stated in, 7.01, "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base." Which when applying to this play meant Reyes maintained entitlement to 3B until he was either tagged out or gained legal entitlement to the next base. The base is not a safe haven to the following runner just because he is standing on it there.

Now, as far as your scenario, I don't know any supporting rules for or against it except for what I read in 7.01 and 7.08c, if you interpret Laworie (or whatever his name is) as not being on "his" bag because he was not entitled to it. That being 3B.

So maybe the umpire needs to consider the status of the proceeding runner. Just trying to understand it too.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by hbk314

He wasn't being a wise ass at all. He's asking you a legitimate question in response to your posted interpretation.

And umpjim has always been more than capable of speaking for himself too. But thanks for your input.

[tommyleo]

This is a very interesting discussion. Earlier today, I also was wondering if Rule 7.01 should apply. But as we see, applying that rule opens a large can of "what ifs".

I'd still like your opinions on my theory presented earlier. Reyes clearly rolled just behind third base. At that point, isn't he considered to be no longer between third and home? If so, then hasn't Lawrie passed Reyes?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I never thought 7.03.a was applicable because, well, they were not both on the bag when tagged.

I was under the impression for this play, that as stated in, 7.01, "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base." Which when applying to this play meant Reyes maintained entitlement to 3B until he was either tagged out or gained legal entitlement to the next base. The base is not a safe haven to the following runner just because he is standing on it there.

Now, as far as your scenario, I don't know any supporting rules for or against it except for what I read in 7.01 and 7.08c, if you interpret Laworie (or whatever his name is) as not being on "his" bag because he was not entitled to it. That being 3B.

So maybe the umpire needs to consider the status of the proceeding runner. Just trying to understand it too.

In order to exercise your entitlement you have to occupy the base. If you are not occupying the base then another runner can stand on the base and not be out if tagged unless you want IMHO to read 7.08(c) too strictly.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by umpjim

In order to exercise your entitlement you have to occupy the base. If you are not occupying the base then another runner can stand on the base and not be out if tagged unless you want IMHO to read 7.08(c) too strictly.

No, in order to exercise your entitlement , you have to (7.01) "touch" the base. Then it says "He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base".

There is no wording there about your entitlement ending if you are not occupying the base, in fact it explicitly states when your entitlement ends.

If we apply your reasoning then why does the book differentiate between being forced or not forced off a base? Why not just say your entitled to the base only when occupying it? Your suggestion basically says that the first to touch is safe and which implies the next one is out. Which makes 7.03a wrong.

If your only argument is 7.08c then we disagree because unless there is an interp out there stating otherwise "his" base can only be defined as the one the runner is entitled to. However, I am still open to being convinced otherwise with supporting rules or official interpretations.

** Having gone back to the video, even the announcers agree the correct call was made!! Which is certainly out of the norm and may be the reason some don't agree.**

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by jicecone

And umpjim has always been more than capable of speaking for himself too. But thanks for your input.

I thought I'd help you comprehend his post since you'd shown yourself to be incapable.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No, in order to exercise your entitlement , you have to (7.01) "touch" the base. Then it says "He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base".

There is no wording there about your entitlement ending if you are not occupying the base, in fact it explicitly states when your entitlement ends.

If we apply your reasoning then why does the book differentiate between being forced or not forced off a base? Why not just say your entitled to the base only when occupying it? Your suggestion basically says that the first to touch is safe and which implies the next one is out. Which makes 7.03a wrong.

If your only argument is 7.08c then we disagree because unless there is an interp out there stating otherwise "his" base can only be defined as the one the runner is entitled to. However, I am still open to being convinced otherwise with supporting rules or official interpretations.

** Having gone back to the video, even the announcers agree the correct call was made!! Which is certainly out of the norm and may be the reason some don't agree.**

Not surprisingly the announcers are wrong.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I thought I'd help you comprehend his post since you'd shown yourself to be incapable.

Lets see here , 27 posts and you have contributed 0 (zero), nada, not a fr*****ing piece of intelligent information about baseball umpiring relative to to this play.

Obviously our diction is way to copious for your comprehension.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No, in order to exercise your entitlement , you have to (7.01) "touch" the base. Then it says "He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base".

There is no wording there about your entitlement ending if you are not occupying the base, in fact it explicitly states when your entitlement ends.

If we apply your reasoning then why does the book differentiate between being forced or not forced off a base? Why not just say your entitled to the base only when occupying it? Your suggestion basically says that the first to touch is safe and which implies the next one is out. Which makes 7.03a wrong.

If your only argument is 7.08c then we disagree because unless there is an interp out there stating otherwise "his" base can only be defined as the one the runner is entitled to. However, I am still open to being convinced otherwise with supporting rules or official interpretations.

** Having gone back to the video, even the announcers agree the correct call was made!! Which is certainly out of the norm and may be the reason some don't agree.**

I didn't say entitlement ends. Let's find out when a runner is out. I believe in the OP from what we discern, R1 is tagged while on a base, and the runner R3 is off the base to which he is entitled. What rule puts R1 out? And if you quote 7.08(c) I will disagree with you as the rulebook has many errors and the wording in 7.08(c) might be one of them. As evidenced by Wendstedt calling it A base and NCAA calling it THE base. Where do you find a rule that has R3 out if we agree upon he alone being on the base?

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I didn't say entitlement ends. Let's find out when a runner is out. I believe in the OP from what we discern, R1 is tagged while on a base, and the runner R3 is off the base to which he is entitled. What rule puts R1 out? And if you quote 7.08(c) I will disagree with you as the rulebook has many errors and the wording in 7.08(c) might be one of them. As evidenced by Wendstedt calling it A base and NCAA calling it THE base. Where do you find a rule that has R3 out if we agree upon he alone being on the base?

I haven't seen rule support yet.