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

Scenario - batter hits ball down left field line. Outfielder throws to relay in short left. Throw to 2nd is wide left and goes out of play. Batter had not touched 2nd at the time of the throw. Umpire ruled batter gets home. Explanation was "batter had earned 2nd as there was no play at 2nd". This league gives 2 bases for out of play throws from the outfield 1 from infield.
I had never heard of a runner "earning" a base without touching it. Is this a known rule? Is my ignorance showing?

You're fine....sounds like the umpire may be showing his ignorance however....

"may be" ?

OTOH, stranger league rules have appeared :eek:

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

With a runner at first base, the catcher attempts a pick-off to F3. The ball deflects off F3's glove and into DBT. "This league" would only allow the runner second base?

Or, better yet...

Batter hits ground ball to shortstop. Batter is about halfway to first base when shortstop throws to first. Ball sails over firstbaseman and out of play.

Only one base on a throw from the infield? By that definition, batter gets first base!

I agree with you it's crazy. I know our captain is pushing them to change it this off-season

Edit: now that I think about it. They umpires give second on overthrows to first. Which technically is 2 bases. Geez they gotta straighten that out

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 ;))

I believe that since the BR has often "achieved" first by the time the ball goes out of play, they think it is a one base award.

Rita

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.

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.

Are you now 10 feet tall after that stretch? ;) :p :p :D :D :rolleyes: