interesting run down situation

[Publius]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

Traded texts with a friend of mine that is a MiLB umpire. He said that R1, Lawrie, was called out because R3, Reyes, had re-acquired third base. If you listen to the annoucers, they got one right. The end of the world must be near.

They got the rule right, but they missed the play--just like Iassogna.

In that situation, R2 is out when tagged only if R3 and R2 occupy the bag simultaneously. Reyes was clearly off the bag and Lawrie on it when Lawrie was tagged. Lawrie should not have been called out.

[bwburke94]

Lawrie was R1, not R2.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Lawrie was R1, not R2.

Whether you using the NFHS runner designation or the rest of the worlds runner designation, Lawrie was R2.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Whether you using the NFHS runner designation or the rest of the worlds runner designation, Lawrie was R2.

Actually, when the play began he was R1. I used R2 for simplicity.

It's understandable how Iassogna missed it. Reyes had indeed reached third base on the way back; it's just that he wasn't on it when Lawrie got tagged. It appears he was blocked out of that part as he rotated off the line around 3rd base. I've had similar instances where I got the call perfect in accordance with the rule based on what I saw, only to find out in the post-game that I didn't see everything.

[tommyleo]

I have a different theory as to why the ump may have gotten this call absolutely right.

First of all, it's hard for me to believe that the ump didn't see that Reyes was not on the base when the trailing runner was tagged. The play was right there.

What the ump did see is Reyes overslide the bag while coming back from home. So where does that leave Reyes? Is Reyes still between third and home? Is it possible to still be between third and home when you overslide third while running back from home?

I say, no way! Once Reyes has overslid the bag, he is now BEFORE third base. The means that the trailing runner must have passed Reyes because the trailing running is on third base and Reyes is before third base. Therefore, the trailing runner is out for passing Reyes. And then Reyes is simply tagged while being off base.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

I have a different theory as to why the ump may have gotten this call absolutely right.

First of all, it's hard for me to believe that the ump didn't see that Reyes was not on the base when the trailing runner was tagged. The play was right there.

What the ump did see is Reyes overslide the bag while coming back from home. So where does that leave Reyes? Is Reyes still between third and home? Is it possible to still be between third and home when you overslide third while running back from home?

I say, no way! Once Reyes has overslid the bag, he is now BEFORE third base. The means that the trailing runner must have passed Reyes because the trailing running is on third base and Reyes is before third base. Therefore, the trailing runner is out for passing Reyes. And then Reyes is simply tagged while being off base.

For Lawrie to have passed Reyes while Lawrie is on 3B, Reyes's feet would have to be between 2B and 3B. Reyes's feet were between 3B and HP, and Reyes's entire body was past 3B from the direction of 2B, so Lawrie did not pass Reyes.

[tommyleo]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

For Lawrie to have passed Reyes while Lawrie is on 3B, Reyes's feet would have to be between 2B and 3B. Reyes's feet were between 3B and HP, and Reyes's entire body was past 3B from the direction of 2B, so Lawrie did not pass Reyes.

I can find nothing in the rules (and I've looked) that defines a runner's position on the basepaths by the position of his feet.

Meanwhile, Reyes' only body part touching the ground is clearly behind third base here. Yes, his butt is only slightly behind third base, but if he had rolled 10 feet past third, would you still consider him between third base and home?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

I have a different theory as to why the ump may have gotten this call absolutely right.

That's an interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.

Pretty sure the ump just missed what happened.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

They got the rule right, but they missed the play--just like Iassogna.

In that situation, R2 is out when tagged only if R3 and R2 occupy the bag simultaneously. Reyes was clearly off the bag and Lawrie on it when Lawrie was tagged. Lawrie should not have been called out.

No, Lawrie was out because he could not acquire 3B until Reyes was tagged out before him or aquired HP.

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.

As stated Reyes was out because he clearly off the bag. Had he tagged Reyes first then Lawrie, Lawrie would have been safe.

[rpumpire]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No, Lawrie was out because he could not acquire 3B until Reyes was tagged out before him or aquired HP.

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.

As stated Reyes was out because he clearly off the bag. Had he tagged Reyes first then Lawrie, Lawrie would have been safe.

The first part of what you said is not correct. It would mean that any runner could be tagged out while standing on a base if the runner ahead of him hasn't touched the next base or been tagged out?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rpumpire

The first part of what you said is not correct. It would mean that any runner could be tagged out while standing on a base if the runner ahead of him hasn't touched the next base or been tagged out?

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.

[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.