Bush League but it almost happened last night

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm pretty sure there was a case play / interp several (or many) years ago where R1 and R2 switched places after the conference.

the ruling was that R1 was out for passing a runner, R2 was out fro running the bases in reverse and the coach was ejected.

I don't think there was an actual official interpretation to that end, and if there was, I find it incongruous with the rules. If you go with the whole "passing a runner" BS, then you have to call BR out every time he hits a foul fly ball and rounds first and R1.

My solution is toss the relevant offenders, put their subs where they should go, and play.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by Matt

My solution is toss the relevant offenders, put their subs where they should go, and play.

By relevant offenders, I would think that includes the HC. Hard to believe he did not play a part in this.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

By relevant offenders, I would think that includes the HC. Hard to believe he did not play a part in this.

Anybody and everybody who had a part.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Matt

. If you go with the whole "passing a runner" BS, then you have to call BR out every time he hits a foul fly ball and rounds first and R1.

Nope. The batter only becomes a runner when he hits a FAIR ball. He's not a runner in this case so he can't be guilty of passing.

[LRZ]

Are there FED versions of OBR 9.01 (c) and (d)? I haven't worked high school ball in decades, so can't recall.

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for...unsportsmanlike conduct...and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Are there FED versions of OBR 9.01 (c) and (d)? I haven't worked high school ball in decades, so can't recall.

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for...unsportsmanlike conduct...and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field....

Yes.

10-2-3-g
10-2-3-c and 3-3-1-g

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Nope. The batter only becomes a runner when he hits a FAIR ball. He's not a runner in this case so he can't be guilty of passing.

Fine, let's go with runners passing each other upon returning on a long uncaught foul ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

Fine, let's go with runners passing each other upon returning on a long uncaught foul ball.

While still in flight? You should be calling this if it happens. Then again, in 21 years, I've never seen it happen.

After it lands? Not illegal.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

While still in flight? You should be calling this if it happens.

No, you shouldn't, fair or foul. Wait to make the call until it drops fair.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Matt

Fine, let's go with runners passing each other upon returning on a long uncaught foul ball.

Nice try. Doesn't create an out.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JJ

You don't? Wow.

JJ

You do? Ouch.

When does the batter become a batter-runner?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You do? Ouch.

check your sarcasm meter.