Passing a runner
 

ASA FP or SP with home runs available.

Bases loaded, two outs, bottom of 7th, home down by 3 runs.

B6 hits a ball deep, R5 got a late start off of 1st base watching the ball clear the centerfield fence. BR/R6 catches and passes R5 between 2nd & 3rd base.

You, as the umpire, allow 4 runs to score. Defense protests that there was a passing the runner violation after the first two runners crossed the plate.

Valid protests? Who wins the game? As the UIC, what rule do you cite to validate your ruling?

First, don't think that a protest would be honored. If nothing was called,
what rule was misinterpt for a protest to be honored? Not an appeal play.
Did BU/PU see the passing?
Don't see it, can't call it.

Second, 4 runs cannot score, only two possible, since two outs and the 3rd
out occurred on the passing.

Rule 8-7D

With 2 outs only those preceding runners score who have touched HP before
the batter is declared out. Timing play, no an appeal play.

I say visitors win by 1.

Did the umpire acknowledge the passed runner and then let the runs count, or did the umpire not see (or not acknowledge he saw) the passed runner? Did the base umpire refuse to check with his partner?

I agree with those stating that this is a call that must be made on the spot, not as an appeal or protest later. If it happened, it's called when it happens. If it's not called, it didn't happen.

And if it did happen, whatever runners had crossed home (max of 2) at the time of the passing score.

I actually had a game end like this - a walk-off grand slam, that wasn't.

I might not have "noticed", but the batter-runner passed the next runner by about 8-10 feet, realized this, and then let the original runner pass her. The coach was so PO'd (should probably be P'dO, right?), anyway, she started laughing hysterically.

I was watching a game at McNeese vs LSU. Same thing happened. BR passed runner that was on first going to second. Not call was made and
defense team "appealed". Play stood up as HR all runs scoring.

Okay, I improperly assumed you would get the point that if there was a protest, there had to be a reason. So, for the sake of this scenario, the umpires saw R6 pass R5 and ignored it.

Same questions.

Before answering ... just a quick note. I don't think YOU would have made such an assumption if someone else posted exactly what you posted. Would you have?

Anyway ... if the umpire saw it, acknowledged it, and failed to apply the correct rule, and I was on the protest committee, my first question would be - did anyone note the position of R1 and R2 at the moment of the passing? I'm assuming both scored ... but it's an important thing to ask.

After that, my answer is the same as above. 2 runs score.

The monkey wrench thrown into any ruling might be the "EFFECT" that follows Rules 8-7 A through E.

It says (in part) that when one of the infractions in sections A-E occur, "The ball is live and the runner is out".

Well, no, not on a ball that has cleared the fence it isn't. The Rules Supplement for passing a runner (#39) also states that on this violation the ball remains live.

How can it remain live if it is dead when it cleared the fence? Is the inferrence that passing a preceeding runner is a live ball violation, much the same as assisting a runner is a live ball violation?

Beats me, but I suspect that is the glitch that Mike is drawing our attention to.

By saying he, the umpire, saw R6 pass R5, and ignored it, then maybe, perhaps, R6 did not entirely pass R5. [entire body did not pass]. This
being the case, the the protest was not upheld and all runs would
score.

Beer on protesting teams protest fee. :D

I would suspect Mike wants someone to say we can ignore the passing because the ball is dead. However, that isn't so. A home run is a 4 base award; and all awarded bases require runners to follow standard baserunning requirements. Upon observation, the umpire must rule the "passing a runner" out, it is a timing play; when the infraction occured.

The key to this, and any other protest, is the wording used by the umpire in describing the (non)ruling. If he tells the UIC he saw it and chose not to rule because the ball was dead, this is a misapplied rule. If he claims he didn't see it, it is not protestable that he didn't rule on what he didn't see. If he claims it didn't actually happen (as Glen notes, didn't fully pass, for example), it is not protestable, as judgment.

Totally agree. As you stated.

When RS #39 says the ball remains live, that actually applies to the particular live ball example given, but the EFFECT for 8-7-A to E does say, "The ball is live."

However, since a runner who passes another runner during a dead ball is out, the EFFECT should probably say something like, "If the infraction occurs during a live ball, the ball remains live."

Okay, Steve has hit the nail on the head. The EFFECT simply states that when this called is applied the ball remains live. There is nothing requiring this to be a "live" ball for the rule to apply.

Until this year, the POE for Passing A Runner began with the comment: Passing a runner occurs during a live ball. This comment is NOT included in RS #39 this year.

However, I bet if you ask a member of the NUS, you will be told that this rule only applies during a live ball period. Now, here comes the "what if".

On a legitimate over-the-fence home run, when does the ball become dead? If the BR flies pass R5 standing on 1B on his way to 2B, is the BR out for passing while the ball is still technically live? And no, I'm not going to continue this scenario.:D

So, if I'm reading you correctly, the proper answer from the UIC depends on whether or not he is a member of the NUS? :D