Two people on one base

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No.................

OK, mind changed.

[mcrowder]

Once it is clear that defense is not going to do anything about this, kill it.

If the OFFENSE wakes up and BR tries to head back to 1st, you have an out on LBR. If the DEFENSE wakes up and tries to play on the runner, play on.

But if No One tries to fix it, we have to, and since you can't grant an out (no one has really done anything illegal), the only remedy is to send BR back to 1st.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Why is there an out on anyone (let alone LBR) if you've called time and BR then heads back to 1st? This is techincally no different than calling "time" with the BR one step off 1st base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Why is there an out on anyone (let alone LBR) if you've called time and BR then heads back to 1st? This is techincally no different than calling "time" with the BR one step off 1st base.

Obviously there wouldn't be once TIME has been called. mcrowder was talking about if the offense sends the runner back while the ball is still live and F1 has the ball in the circle, not making a play. My guess is the OC wanted TIME to prevent the runner from making this dumb move on her own.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Gotcha. Thank you.

[GaryBarrentine]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

If the OFFENSE wakes up and BR tries to head back to 1st, you have an out on LBR.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion and how you would backup this call.

Thanks

GaryB

[Dakota]

GaryB, did you see my answer to Hawkeye?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Thought I sent this earlier; must have hit a wrong button.

Mike has given the ASA ruling; once it is established neither side is making a play, kill the ball, and return the runner to the only base legally attained. If defense makes a play, play on; if offense leaves the base, LBR violation.

NFHS has given a different ruling; call the trail runner out, per Mary Struckhoff. No direct rule reference, as no rule actually applies. Her comment was that the runner has no legal right to the base; however, she neglects the rule requirement of the appropriate remedy, that the defense tag the runner who doesn't have the legal right to the base. Nonetheless, that is the NFHS official ruling.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

NFHS has given a different ruling; call the trail runner out, per Mary Struckhoff. No direct rule reference, as no rule actually applies. Her comment was that the runner has no legal right to the base; however, she neglects the rule requirement of the appropriate remedy, that the defense tag the runner who doesn't have the legal right to the base. Nonetheless, that is the NFHS official ruling.

Is that documented anywhere besides internet boards?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Is that documented anywhere besides internet boards?

Yes. 2005 NFHS Casebook Rule 8-3-3 Situation B.

I don't yet have 2006 book to compare; in Georgia, it is a fall sport.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

NFHS has given a different ruling; call the trail runner out, per Mary Struckhoff. No direct rule reference, as no rule actually applies. Her comment was that the runner has no legal right to the base; however, she neglects the rule requirement of the appropriate remedy, that the defense tag the runner who doesn't have the legal right to the base. Nonetheless, that is the NFHS official ruling.

Since the legal remedy of tagging the trail runner is in the book, how does she justify calling the out? I know you said there is no rule cited but dang. I like the ASA remedy better and if a fed game was protested over it, I guess I would get a game off for blowing it. If the defense can't make outs that are outs by rule, why reward them?
Mini rant over

BTW who is Mary Struckoff

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

BTW who is Mary Struckoff

Mary Struckhoff is the assistant director for the NFHS and the rules editor for softball.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

... snip ...
NFHS has given a different ruling; call the trail runner out, per Mary Struckhoff. No direct rule reference, as no rule actually applies. Her comment was that the runner has no legal right to the base; however, she neglects the rule requirement of the appropriate remedy, that the defense tag the runner who doesn't have the legal right to the base. Nonetheless, that is the NFHS official ruling.

Is that something like the above "if pitcher attempts (not coach deciding), then "dead ball, no pitch". I would then call R2 out"?

[GaryBarrentine]

Tom,

Yes, I saw the response, but do not understand how R2 would be in voilaton of LBR if R2 started to return to 1st.

Here is my thinking about the situation. With the situation as described, R2 is liable to be put out if tagged, because R2 is not legally occupying a base. Since R2 is not legally occupying a base, R2 is technically off base between 1st and 2nd when the ball is received by F1 in the circle and LBR goes into effect. Why would the LBR not be applied as if R2 is off base between 1st and 2nd in this situation?

Thanks

GaryB

[Dakota]

The LBR does not speak to a legally occupied base. It only talks about "a base".

So, while both runners are not entitled to remain on the same base, neither runner will be in violation of the LBR so long as they both remain there. But, if F1 has the ball in the circle, and the ball is live, and F1 is not making a play, then either runner would be out if either left the base.