Out of play question - runner "earned" base before touching

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Ilikesoftball

I spoke with the president of the league. He said we follow generally follow ASA rules

Not in this case they aren't.

Not just the "earned" nonsense... but in ASA, except for pitches that go out of play, it's always 2 bases.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not in this case they aren't.

Not just the "earned" nonsense... but in ASA, except for pitches that go out of play, it's always 2 bases.

And loss of control (every 10 years or so )

[Ilikesoftball]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not in this case they aren't.

Not just the "earned" nonsense... but in ASA, except for pitches that go out of play, it's always 2 bases.

Other rules are the same. But you're 100% right here. I'm going to talk to him about changing the wording.

Also I just heard back from the league president and the umpire got in trouble with his boss as his explanation spread across the league. Apparently he just made stuff up after I asked about the rule between innings.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Ina an effort to find some reasonable explanation for the ruling, the strange wording this umpire used could have POSSIBLY been a poorly worded attempt to state that the runner had passed the base at the time of the throw despite the OP wording of "had not touched 2nd". IF that were the case, he would be correct in awarding home (although the runner is still subject to an appeal for missing the base if the runner did not return to touch), since runners are awarded bases based on their actual position irrespective of bases actually touched.

However, it doesn't appear that would be the case; to be true, this would need to be a throw behind a runner having passed 2nd, not a throw to retire a runner advancing to 2nd. If it as straight forward as it appears, the words "I protest" should have been used before the next pitch.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Ina an effort to find some reasonable explanation for the ruling, the strange wording this umpire used could have POSSIBLY been a poorly worded attempt to state that the runner had passed the base at the time of the throw despite the OP wording of "had not touched 2nd". IF that were the case, he would be correct in awarding home (although the runner is still subject to an appeal for missing the base if the runner did not return to touch), since runners are awarded bases based on their actual position irrespective of bases actually touched.

Are you now 10 feet tall after that stretch?