Bush League but it almost happened last night
 

Varsity baseball...5th inning runners at 1st and 2nd, coach makes visit to the mound and replaces pitcher. 3rd base coach calls runners over for a conference during the warm-up pitches. When the warm-ups are completed, runners return to 2nd and 3rd. Plate puts the ball in play and the defensive coach comes screaming out of the dugout that the players were on 1st and 2nd prior to the trip to the mound.

Time is called, crew discusses and runners are returned to 1st and 2nd. So question is this...what is the call if the pitch is (for arguments sake) made, and hit for a double with the runners on 2nd and 3rd scoring before anyone realizes that they went to the wrong bases?

Sounds like a couple ejections are in order.

Yes, two umpires who are clueless.

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'd look for a similar situation here.

If I missed it during the game (hah!), I'd have an ejection, and a report. I'd hope the state would call it a forfeit, and add a suspension.

Score one run, place runners on 2nd & 3rd. Eject defensive HC. Circle the wagons.

OR

Place runners on 1st & 2nd & replay. Eject offensive HC. Circle the wagons.

I can't see any case play letting you do ANYTHING here after a pitch is thrown. Then again, if the umpires were clueless enough to let this happen - they likely have no idea either A) where the runners were with the pitch was hit for a double or B) where they should have been before that pitch.

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.

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

FWIW, there's an actual case play on this in FED Softball:

8.6.4 SITUATION D: With R1 at second base, R2 at first base and a 1-1 count on B3, the offensive coach requests time to speak with the runners and batter. When the players return to their bases, R1 and R2 have switched places. After the next pitch to B3, the defensive coach asks for time and informs the umpire that the runners have occupied the wrong bases. RULING: Both players are guilty of base running infractions. The umpire shall rule both R1 and R2 out for their actions. If, in the umpire's judgment, the act was deliberate, both players and the coach could be ejected for unsporting behavior. (8-3-6; 10-2-3f)

So "over there", it doesn't matter that a pitch had been delivered. It's still an infraction that the umpires can address. I suppose that if the batter had put the ball in play, the two guilty runners would still be called out, and the ejections would be warranted.

Not sure why there isn't a similar case play on the baseball side. Maybe it was in there at one point.

From a previous thread on this subject:

Now if we can only find the 2003 interps (I'm sure I have them at home)

I'm not too keen on using the base-running infractions of running in reverse order and passing a preceding runner to come up with the solution to this scenario. For one, these infractions actually took place when the ball was dead. The runners didn't do what the ruling says they did when play was live, so how can you rule as such?

Also, the ruling doesn't address other potential scenarios like the OP. There is no base-running infraction when runners start at first and second before the huddle, and then occupy second and third afterward.

If the interpreters really want to treat these shenanigans as egregious violations to the spirit of the game that warrant everyone involved ruled out and ejected, then they should simply say that, and not try to justify the rulings by using extremely liberal (and somewhat nonsensical) interpretations of the base-running rules.

Courtesy ofstevethe ump website:


SITUATION 3: During a time-out, with runners on first and second bases, 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)

Anybody and everybody who had a part.

Like they did in softball. And I agree.

2 outs and eject the coach seems fair here. Assuming the umpires recognize that it happened or can verify it somehow.

I remember this being brought up a year or so ago. Ever since then I been waiting for this to happen in one of my games. I look for it, so it will be hard to get this one over on me. And as soon as play is live again, both runners are out and the coach is going to the bus. IMO the coach would be held liable. Ejecting the players for doing what a coach told them to do is extreme. If the players did it themselves, the coach should still be held responsible.JMO

I would go with option 2 here. I can't see awarding the offense for their actions. But, I wouldn't eject the HC if he wasn't the 3rd base coach.

Wanna triple play? What if it was a caught fly ball and runners tag. 1 out on the catch, 2 more outs for not properly tagging up?

I know (well, think...) you're being funny here ... but what tagging up rule did they violate? Reading the actual rule, I don't believe you can call them out for that on this play.

I was referring to the OP. The question was posed if there was a double hit with runners on the wrong bases, assuming with direct knowledge, what should be done?

I was playing devils advocate in responding to scoring any runs. If we allow runs to score on a base hit, then we should allow outs to count as well.

They tagged up at the wrong bases:)

Barring orders to the contrary, I’ve got nothing other than a shorter leash on the O, maybe one or more EJ reports and a topic for post game with the crew. I contend that the ball was never “properly” live following the dead ball.

I propose word-smithing 5.1.4 (how to make a dead ball live) to include what is provided in 8.2.2 so that it reads something like, “…in their respective boxes, all runners return to their appropriate base, and the umpire…”

Also, 8.2.9 provides that each “runner returns to the base he had reached or passed when the ball became dead.”

For those of you proposing outs...rule cite?

Yeah, if they were 10U or 12U, perhaps. But high school and college players? They should know better, and they deserve the ramifications of their willingness to essentially cheat.

I agree with college players, but IMO, they are less likely to cheat in this manner. Most HS kids are 15-16 yrs old, so I hold most of the blame on the coach. I'm just not going to punish a kid for doing what he was told or allowed to do.

Really? Coach tells his SS to always fake a tag on a hit & run. You don't warn him & award R1 a base? What if he does it a second time?

HS players are intelligent enough to remember which base they started on. If they switch, it's on them as much as on their coach.

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.

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

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

You do? Ouch.

When does the batter become a batter-runner?

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.

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

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?

This interp gives you the right to call 2 outs if the runners switch places.

Problem is, it says one is out for running the bases backward, and the other is out for passing.

And NEITHER of these happen in the OP. I believe the reasoning they give for 2 outs is faulty, but since this is the most recent interpretation that is even close to the OP, and the 2 outs they give us refer to things that don't happen in the OP, I cannot justify 2 outs here, even though I think that's what FED wants here.

I'm trying to visualize what I might write in a report to our state office. I can certainly justify EJs for Unsportsmanlike Conduct [3-3-1g(4)], but I don't see how I can justify outs.

Yes, common sense. Wait, we're using FED...

In all seriousness, there's probably a reason that this is a) not in the casebook, and b) not located anywhere. My hunch is that they realized how it doesn't have a basis by rule. I can't enforce something that only has an existing basis on stevetheump's website.

I'll be quite straightforward--I'm not enforcing outs here, FED or not. If this ever were to happen, I'd tell the DC to protest my not giving any outs, and see what comes of it.

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD you do?

Suppose after the base switch, the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter singles to knock home the lead runner from second, and the trail runner moves to second. The DC comes out and protests that the runner at second was originally the lead runner, and you verify that fact by checking your lineup card. Would you allow the run? Would you require a do-over?

I realize we're talking baseball here. But as I posted before, the interp is located somewhere. It's a FED Softball case play.

Also, ASA Softball has this in its rule book under the "Runner is Out" section, 8-7:

Y. When base runners switch positions on the bases they occupied following any conference.
EFFECT: Each runner on an improper base shall be declared out. In addition, the manager shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

And in the NCAA Softball rule book, you'll find this under section 12.5, the "Base Runner is Out after a Proper Appeal" section:

12.5.3 When, after a conference, base runners switch positions on the bases they occupied, the ball has been put back in play, and before the end of the half-inning.
EFFECT—Each base runner on the improper base shall be declared out and ejected. In addition, the head coach shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike behavior. (Behavioral ejections.)

I find it interesting that NCAA Softball requires an appeal for this. I'm willing to bet there's similar language in other softball rule books (PONY, USSSA, etc.)

Why it's all over the place in softball, but not in baseball is beyond me. In my experience, baseball has more incidents of this kind of unsporting crap than the girls' game.

So we're to the "if an interp doesn't make it to the case book is it valid?" question. One that's been around for a long time, and never answered (afaik) by FED.

(This question comes up from time to time, and in other sports.)

Interesting case, and I think one likely to happen more often as word spreads and coaches get increasingly "creative" in their efforts to win. Has anyone taken this back to their state association/interpreter or local associations? I'm inactive right now (but eager to get back in) so don't have access. I'd love to know what they say.

This is just about as true a statement I've ever read, and (along with the organizational politics) it explains why I no longer work FED baseball or soccer.

I really don't know. In this particular sequence, the thing for me is how would I verify it after the fact? I'm very cognizant of verifying runners before the fact, so the chances of this happening to me are next to none, but I don't know how I would verify the DC's assertion.

But let's say it somehow happens. The one thing I can tell you is that I'm still ejecting. I don't know if I would let it stand or if I would have a do-over.

Is there a case play for, say, the defense playing the first batter with 10 on the field and getting an out? If there is, I would use the same principle.

I have trouble thinking of how this could be verified after the fact as well. "She was on 2nd, she should have been on first" - I can probably verify that she was on 2nd ... but if I missed the fact that they moved up during the time out, I'm probably not aware enough to know for certain that she should have been on first.

The switched places scenario is more readily verifiable - especially if only one runner scored and the other (wrong) one is still on base.

Let's try this on for size.

R2, R3, one out. Double (potential triple) to right. R2, after rounding third, starts to go back to second, thinking the ball was caught. Throw comes to third while both BR and R2 are between second and third. Somehow, in the jumble, BR ends up on third and R2 ends up on second. You don't catch it, and the defense doesn't either (hey, they're just happy only one run scored.) After the next batter singles and advances both, DC has the light-bulb moment.

Can you go back and fix it? I say no.

Speaking of light-bulb moments, I just had it!

You can get outs on the switch, but not how FED wants it.

If the offense had a conference, and came out if it with two brand new runners, we would call it a substitution (unannounced, potentially.) I think if they do the switch with existing runners, we have two illegal substitutions. Bam! Both are out and restricted.

Simply brilliant. And you know you're going to get the coach too.

If this situation arises, I will definitely use this. Go ahead and protest, bitch.

How can you have any substitution when both players are already in the lineup?

Why not? Probably the most common illegal sub is when both players are in the lineup. The DH goes on defense without his defensive counterpart coming out.

Apples to oranges. The DH is the only one in the batting order.

Wrong.

How so? The DH is listed in the (9-player) batting order. The player for whom he is batting isn't. Only one of those two can play offense at the same time, or play defense at the same time.

However, switching them isn't considered a substitution.

I never said they were switched for each other. Quite the contrary.

Not exactly the OP, but from the most recent NCAA Interps:

1. Code of Ethics, p. 10: Refer to items 1, 2, and 3. What is the procedure the umpires should follow when it is discovered that two players have switched base running positions during a
defensive time-out? Prior to the next pitch, play or if any member of the umpiring crew remains in the confines of the field of play:

Call any player out who may have scored:
a. Eject both players and the head coach
b. Administer Rule 5-15b, levy a two game suspension of the head coach for the
unsportsmanlike act.
c. Allow the conference to determine additional penalties against the head coach.

I'm not sure what the NCAA means by this.

I'm guessing they mean if the umpires don't catch the switch prior to the ball being put in play and one of the switched runners subsequently scores.

But it's preceded by the "prior to the next pitch or play" stuff. That's what's baffling.

Maybe that means "prior to the next pitch or play after discovery."

That could lead to an interesting strategy: Have F1 intentionally balk enough times to score all the runners, then 'discover' the error. But I am probably missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

A balk is a play. Refer to interps and approved rulings on balks.