Please confirm - misc

[CecilOne]

Still confirming:

6) Tie Breaker Rule - ASA or any
The book (5.11.B) says that if the runner to be placed on 2nd is the "out player" in a shorthanded situation, do not call an out but use the preceding player in the order.
That means the inning still starts with an out; as the "out player" is then the leadoff spot. The wording could mislead some.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Still confirming:

6) Tie Breaker Rule - ASA or any
The book (5.11.B) says that if the runner to be placed on 2nd is the "out player" in a shorthanded situation, do not call an out but use the preceding player in the order.
That means the inning still starts with an out; as the "out player" is then the leadoff spot. The wording could mislead some.

If the leadoff batter happens to be the missing player, yes the inning would start with an out, but not if the missing player was the one to be placed at 2nd base. The rule is simply clarifying that if the tie breaker starts with the missing player being the one that is suppose to be placed on 2nd it is not an out, simply move to the preceeding player on the lineup and place them at 2nd.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Still confirming:

6) Tie Breaker Rule - ASA or any
The book (5.11.B) says that if the runner to be placed on 2nd is the "out player" in a shorthanded situation, do not call an out but use the preceding player in the order.
That means the inning still starts with an out; as the "out player" is then the leadoff spot. The wording could mislead some.

Thinking thru your version, the missing spot would generate two outs; the last of the prior inning, plus the first of the new inning. That isn't the intent of this rule.

If the missing spot generates the third out in the prior inning, the following spot is leading off the tiebreaker inning. The runner is the preceding batter that is in the game, not to fail to have a runner.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by teebob21

F3 on white; does not have ball: Obstruction.
F3 on orange; does not have ball. Obstruction.
F3 on white; has ball: Out.
F3 on orange; has ball: ???? Nothing? Safe, yes, but anything else?

I just indicate like any other "off the bag" play...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My turn to be "anal". If impeded or hindered or

Given that the poster said the players collided ... I think "impeded or hindered" is a given.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Still confirming:

6) Tie Breaker Rule - ASA or any
The book (5.11.B) says that if the runner to be placed on 2nd is the "out player" in a shorthanded situation, do not call an out but use the preceding player in the order.
That means the inning still starts with an out; as the "out player" is then the leadoff spot. The wording could mislead some.

I disagree, the wording is, IMO, quite straight forward and concise. You are making presumptions that are not stated or indicated in any manner in 5.11

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Thinking thru your version, the missing spot would generate two outs; the last of the prior inning, plus the first of the new inning. That isn't the intent of this rule.

If the missing spot generates the third out in the prior inning, the following spot is leading off the tiebreaker inning. The runner is the preceding batter that is in the game, not to fail to have a runner.

My post was about when the shorthand out did not happen in the previous inning, should have clarified.
My point was to confirm that in the case of the "out player" starting an inning; the preceding player in the order goes to 2nd; which make the "out player" lead off the inning with an out. The words "do not call an out" can mislead some.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If the missing spot generates the third out in the prior inning, the following spot is leading off the tiebreaker inning. The runner is the preceding batter that is in the game, not to fail to have a runner.

The wording seems intended for that situation and is clear for it.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Given that the poster said the players collided ... I think "impeded or hindered" is a given.

Of course. That post was more about needling someone; but also because that is a rule often quoted incompletely.