Here's JEA

7.03 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. The preceding runner is entitled to the base.

Cross References: 7.01

Historical Notes: The 1920 Official Rules explained the proper enforcement when two runners ended up on the same base. (Circa 1920)

In case a runner is being run down between bases and the following runner occupies the same base the first runner has left, the second man cannot be put out while holding said base. If the first runner, however, returns safely to the base he left, and both runners are then occupying the same base, the second runner is the man out, if touched with the ball.

The 1950 recodification established the exact wording used in today's rule.

Professional Interpretation: The preceding runner is entitled to the base when two runners occupy the same base; however, if a force play has been initiated by the batter's becoming a runner, the preceding runner loses all legal rights to that base and may be retired by being tagged while still occupying the base.

On force plays, the following runner is entitled to the base.

Situations: One out, runners on second and third. The batter hits a ground ball to the third baseman who traps the runner off third. A rundown follows. The agile runner is able to get back to third safely, however, the runner from second is also standing on third base, both runners are tagged. Who is declared out?
RULING: The original runner still has the rights to third base. The runner from second shall be called out when tagged.

Thanks Rita, if this doesn't work I don't know what will.

Thank you

It reads nice however, it speaks about when entitlement takes place but fails to fully discuss once entitlement is achieved , when possession is relinquished. 7.01 specifies this. It also quotes 7.08b incorrectly because 7.08b applies to a runner interfering with a thrown ball.

Others questions I have about the article is:

1. Writers authenticity relative to officiating?
2. What is the "Principle of Occupation"?
3. This solution seems to come to a conclusion based more upon logic,word definition and interpretation in laymen's terms rather than historical officiating/baseball rule interpretation.

I am not saying it is incorrect however, there are too many errors in it to establish official credibility over a more authoritative source.

Thank you Rita, this is the closest authoritative ruling I have seen here. I believe it is still in conflict with 7.01 but if that is the official interpretation then I can accept it.

I am going to keep researching for my own peace of mind though.

Again, Thank you.

Only problem is, it's from 1920. But it's all we have.

Here's 7.01 from JEA

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.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: If a runner legally acquires title to a base and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

Cross References: 7.03, 7.08(i)

Historical Notes: The original Major League Code of 1876 established this baserunning premise and determined who had legal rights to a base.

The wording of this rule was experimented with over a period of several decades. Finally, in 1967, the rule was written as it appears today. This wording clarified that a runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out, and he can occupy it until he is forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. The old wording was ambiguous in that it merely stated that the runner could legally occupy it until another runner (any runner, presumably) forced him to advance. As one can see in Rule 7.03, not all advancing runners are legally entitled to their next base.

The Official Note prohibiting a runner from illegally returning to a base was added to this rule (7.01) in 1963. It reflects the sentiments of the rulesmakers in the early part of the 20th century (circa 1920) who wanted to put an end to "trick plays" on the bases and "freak deliveries" from the pitcher. Prior to the proscription against this baserunning ploy in 1920, managers would use this unorthodox strategy in an attempt to score a run. With runners on first and third, the runner from first would attempt a steal of second hoping that the runner from third would score on the throw to second. If the strategy did not work and the runner did not score, the runner on second would "steal back to first" on the next pitch. Hopefully, this would instigate a poor throw which would produce a run or, at least, set up the trick play again. ¬This strategy was not in compliance with the objectives of the game as the rulesmakers intended and thus the legislation against it. Additionally, this legislation came on the heels of the Black Sox scandal and was deem necessary to help restore public confidence in the game.

See rule 7.08(i) for historical evolution of reverse baserunning.

Professional Interpretation: Unless forced by virtue of the batter becoming a runner, the preceding runner or original occupant has the legal right to a base. When forced, however, the original occupant can be retired by tagging him while on that base or by tagging the base to which he is forced before he touches it.

Once the batter-runner is retired, all force plays are removed.

When the pitcher assumes his position on the rubber prior to delivery, no runner may return to a previously occupied base. If he attempts to do so, the umpire shall call "time" and declare him out.

Originally adopted to eliminate a trick play and unorthodox strategy, this rule accomplished its purpose. Such shenanigans are unheard of in the modern game.

Umpires should be alert and declare out any runner who should return to his previous base after the pitcher has assumed his position on the rubber. This could most logically happen when the runner felt that he "left too soon" on a tag-up and would attempt to return before an appeal was made on him.

Situations: One out, runner on first. The batter pops a quick one-hopper to the first baseman. The first baseman fields the ball, tags first base, and then tags the runner who never left the base. Is this a double play?
RULING: The batter is out but the runner is entitled to remain at first since the "force" was removed before he was tagged.

One out..runner on first. The batter drills a line shot toward right field. The 1st baseman makes a spectacular diving effort and knocks the ball down. The runner thinks the ball is caught and returns to the base. The 1st baseman picks up the ball and crawls to the base. He tags the original runner who is standing on the base and then tags the base before the B-R arrives. Who is out?
RULING: This is a double play. The runner was forced to vacate 1st and so he is declared out even though he was on the base when tagged. The B-R is out on the force at 1st.

So here's how I see it. R3 is legally entitled to third, if he's standing on it, IF he gets back to it. That didn't happen in this situation.

Rita

This right here is all that matters.

While you are researching, check out the NCAA rulebook:

8-1-c
c. If a runner is in a run down between bases and the following runner occupies the same base the first runner has left, the second runner cannot be put out while occupying said base. If the first runner, however, returns safely to the base last touched and both runners then are occupying the same base, the second runner is out, if touched with the ball and there is no force.

Technically, if he's touching it. :p

Rita

I can deal with that. Haven't done NCAA ball in a while however, it is always good to learn something.

Thanks

I'm surprised that this thread has gone three pages.

We know what you mean :)

It only takes one person to not see the light for a thread to drag on.

And who died and bestowed the title "Rule Guru's" upon you two. You had every oppurtunity to pipe in with your brillance at any time. Oh I know, your above that.

Being a rules guru is what bestowed that title on him. :)