interesting run down situation
 

I wouldn't have gotten this call right...

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

Unless the big diamonds have a rule I don't know, you would have been right there with the third base umpire then.

Yankees DP
 

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.

Lawrie was R1, not R2.

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.

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

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?

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 <I>entitled</I> to occupy 3rd until he advanced or was put out, but he has to actually <I>be</I> occupying it in order for the following runner who is <I>also</I> occupying it to be put out.

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.

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.

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

Pretty sure the ump just missed what happened.

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?

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...at122351AM.png

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.**

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

Not surprisingly the announcers are wrong.

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.

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.

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. :)

Maybe so, but being rude is uncalled for.

My comment was meant generically, and not directed specifically at anyone in this thread.

I have posted suggested forum (software) rules that IMO would help.

And, I did post support for the correct answer back in post #13.

To be clear:

If 2 (or more) runners are on a base and tagged, the runner entitled to the base is safe and the other runner(s) is(are) out.

If 1 runner is on a base and tagged, he's safe, unless he's been forced from the base (not applicable in this play).

None of the other rule book mastication matters.