check your sarcasm meter.

Nice try. Doesn't create an out.

That's the point. Neither does the OP, but some would attempt to justify outs using an interpretation of a rule that would result in outs in the example we are discussing here.

Apples and oranges. In the OP, runners are not guilty of passing each other or running bases in reverse. All they did was advance one base against the rules. It was the other scenario where runners switch bases that calls for outs due to base running infractions.

And that's where I fundamentally disagree with the ruling. We should treat both scenarios for what they are--cheating. Penalize any kind of shenanigans where runners try to take advantage by switching bases, advancing bases, etc., the same way. Rule the guilty runners out, and eject them.

By using base running infractions as the rationale behind ruling the switching base runners out, it prohibits a similar penalty in the OP. My contention is that the outs should be ruled because the runners wantonly and intentionally placed themselves on different bases than where they were prior to the conference to give themselves an unfair advantage. THAT'S what should be punished.

You can't do that. Outs are defined by rule. There is no rule that says this results in outs. In fact, 5.02 states that we can't get outs here.

That's why you can use the rules that actually exist--eject for USC, and place their subs on the appropriate bases.

1) This was HS, so FED rules apply (probably)

2) there is a FED interp to the effect given. You might think they're making s*** up (and I might think that), but they are allowed to do so. I'll follow the interp.

The interps given for runners switching bases includes ruling those runners out, 5.02 notwithstanding. Others here have quoted those interps here.

That same interp is provided in FED Softball, as I mentioned before. And it doesn't include bogus references to one runner passing the other and the other runner going in reverse.

For once, I believe both sides of this argument have completely valid points.

I think it's clear that FED intends this kind of cheating to be rewarded with 2 outs and 3 ejections.

But it's equally clear that because FED has only one similar case play here and used rules in that case play which cannot justify outs in our OP, they have kind of tied our hands preventing us from doing what they probably wanted us to do. The only way to justify 2 outs here is by invoking the God rule - and they did NOT invoke that rule in our similar case play.

Honestly, outs for passing (which they did during a dead ball - and as Matt points out, we don't enforce any other outs during dead balls for passing) and for running the bases in reverse (again - they did it during a dead ball ... and any runner who comes from 2nd to visit the FIRST base coach during a dead ball does EXACTLY what they are penalizing here - yet we would never rule that an out) is frankly stupid.

Seems to me a less specific case play (or perhaps another case play more like our OP) is in order here. Or even a rules addition specifying this as illegal and what the penalty should be. I think we need a ruling from on high on this one. Absent that, I think it deserves two outs, but can't give 2 outs.

According to NFHS, high school athletic fields and competition are an extension of the classroom. You think that stuff like this would be put with during class. Maybe, but I sure hope not.

One problem. There is no current interpretation in baseball that covers this, at least that I can find.

I'm a little late to the party, but I think I agree w/ Matt. I don't think you can get an out here. You can EJ, but I don't think you can get an out.

2003 FED Interps, Situation 3: During a time-out, with runners on first and second base, R2 switches places with R1 because he is faster and plans on stealing third base when the game resumes. RULING: When detected, the umpire will award two outs to the defense, warn the coach and eject R2 and R1. One out is assessed for passing a runner and another out is for running the bases in reverse order. This infraction may be corrected during a dead ball when detected by the umpire, defensive team or offensive team. (3-3-1g, 8-4-2m, n)

(Any typos are likely mine. The R1, R2 notation is FED's)

Like I said, no current interpretations.

I realize this is an INTERP but I disagree with the logic. This switch was likely precipitated by the HC and even if not he should have discovered and either way he is responsible. Penalize the players by ejection and warn the coach, what a crock. I say eject the coach, call 2 outs and be done with it. Nobody passed a runner or ran backwards during a live ball so just call it a situation not covered and umpire decides.

I also think this should never happen with a base ump paying attention during a time out.

So you have a reference that the interp is no longer valid?