Interesting play as it was described

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The runners left their base on the touch. They were most likely well on their way to the next base at the time it was actually caught. There is only a call upon the catch, so I cannot see where there's any reason to send the runners back.

THE KEY POINT - as runners can legally go on first touch it does not matter whether the ball was caught or not. They are legally advancing and there is no re-touch appeal possible.

The appropriate play for the defense was to know the runners could go on first touch. They blew it. Too bad.

This is the part I did not assume. OP simply said they left the base, don't know if they shot off to the next base or hesitated waiting for a call.

I would like to see it, but you are correct, it is quite possible there would be no reason to return the runner.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

THE KEY POINT - as runners can legally go on first touch it does not matter whether the ball was caught or not. They are legally advancing and there is no re-touch appeal possible.

That's not true. You need to know that. If the ball is uncaught the runners are out by force.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If the umpire makes the call, the D doesn't turn what they believed to be a triple play. If the umpire make the call, the runners don't leave their respective bases.

Yes, the umpires' reversal, and it is a reversal since no out call would constitute a safe ruling, placed everyone in jeopardy.

This was my thinking as well. Even though it likely would not have much mattered, the defense didn't turn what they were thinking was a triple play. When the defense threw it to second for the appeal, no call was made, because the umpires didn't know if the ball was caught or not. To make this call after the fact and allow the runners to advance in the confusion is to me enforcing a rule that would, by enforcement, benefit one team (offense). I came here to see if I was accurate in my thinking or if I'm way off base.

My instinct is that I would have called it this way as well. Batter out, runners return due to the confusion from the non call. But I would have had to be there to see this happen to really know what happened, and I don't know what would be appropriate here. That's why I posed the question.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by LIUmp

At the "instant" it hit the pitcher's glove, you mean to tell me that both umps, or at least one ump, SAW that the runners were touching their bases?

Well, what else do you have to go with? I find it hard to believe as well, but it's their call.

Originally Posted by LIUmp

With no call being made, did this not cause some confusion for the defense/offense? Seems like one team made out quite well here.

I agree that a call should have been made immediately, and it's the PU's to make. Chances are, the BU (with R1 and R2 at second and first) could not see whether or not F6 made the catch, so he's not going to be able to offer much help.

Originally Posted by LIUmp

Seems to me, and I only say this because one of the umpires involved is known for this, that this is a case of being an OOJ.

What's that got to do with it? There were three things the umpires had to determine here--whether F1 first touched the ball, whether F6 made the catch, and whether the runners properly tagged up. From your description, the umpires made their determination. I don't see what additional rulings and interpretations came out of this that would be indicative of an OOJ.

Originally Posted by LIUmp

I know the rule, I am just asking about how the umpires handled this.

From your description, they didn't handle it well. A catch/no-catch call is a must here. Since one wasn't made initially, then perhaps the ASA rule (I don't have a book handy, so I can't look it up) on an umpire's mistake putting a team at a disadvantage could be invoked. The reasonable compromise would be to call B3 out, and return R1 and R2.