Jump to content
  • 0

Can a runner be tagged out standing on a base


Guest Lee Warburton
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3269 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Lee Warburton

Stuation: a runner occupies first base with less than two outs; a ground ball is hit to the first baseman but the runner on first remains on the base and does not try to advance. The first baseman fields the ground ball, walks over an tags the runner standing on first base and then tags the base to force out the batter/runner.  Is this a double play or does the runner standing on the base remain safe and only the batter/runner is out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Official Rules: 2.00 Definition of Terms

 

FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Rule 2.00 (Force Play) Comment: Confusion regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the force situation is removed during the play. Example: Man on first, one out, ball hit sharply to first baseman who touches the bag and batter-runner is out. The force is removed at that moment and runner advancing to second must be tagged. If there had been a runner on third or second, and either of these runners scored before the tag-out at second, the run counts. Had the first baseman thrown to second and the ball then had been returned to first, the play at second was a force out, making two outs, and the return throw to first ahead of the runner would have made three outs. In that case, no run would score.
Example: Not a force out. One out. Runner on first and third. Batter flies out. Two out. Runner on third tags up and scores. Runner on first tries to retouch before throw from fielder reaches first baseman, but does not get back in time and is out. Three outs. If, in umpires judgment, the runner from third touched home before the ball was held at first base, the run counts

 

Official Rules: 7.00 The Runner

7.01
A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.
Rule 7.01 Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

We actually had this happen on Saturday except it happened at 2nd. F6 tagged R2 (who hadn't moved off the base yet) then stepped on 2B for the force out of R1 running to 2B. The coach was so confused but we have the same explanation given above and he said "that makes sense but it sux".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Lee Warburton

The play I described actually happened in game I played in yesterday.  The umpire and most players agreed it was a double play citing the their opinion that the runner on first had no right to first base after the ball was hit and the batter then became a runner. I contend it is not a double play and I will cite MLB rules 6.09 a) and 7.01 to justify this.

 

Rule 6.09: The batter becomes a runner when a) he hits a fair ball

 

Rule 7.01: The runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.

 

Analysis:  The batter who now becomes a runner only acquires the right to first base upon touching it before he is out (7.01). While running to first base, he still has not acquired any right to the base. Up until this time, the original runner on first is entitled to first base until the batter runner arrives safely (7.01).  When the batter/runner arrives safely, the original runner is then forced to vacate the base because he is no longer entitled to it.  Because the first baseman tagged the runner standing on first base before the batter/runner arrived, the runner still was entitled to the base so the tag was not an out.  Then when the first baseman touched first base, the batter/runner was out which then eliminated the requirement for the original runner to vacate the base.  As a result, it is not a double play.

 

Now let me know if my analysis is not correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

you are completely ignoring rule 2.00 Force Play

 

FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

 

Once the ball is put in play, the batter runner, while he hasn't reached first, has that as his only option.  He can not go back to home plate and be called safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Pretty sure our guest either never played past little league and did not play much then or is a lawyer trying to find a loophole.

Read all the rules then offer your analysis please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Lee Warburton

I love the logic used on this site:  "it is what it is because it is" If your opinion says it's a double play then it's a double play.

 

I am not omitting the fact it is a force play.  Rule 7.01 states that a runner is entitled to a base until he is forced to vacate it and he is not forced to vacate until the batter/runner is legally entitled to the base and this does not occur until the batter/runner touches first base before he is out. 

 

In other words, the runner on first does not have to vacate the base until the batter reaches the base (safely).  At that point in time, the original runner on first then has no legal right to the base and must vacate.

 

There's no overanalysis here, just a stating the rules as they are written.

 

If you want to rely solely on rule 2.00, what if the batter is tagged out while running to first base?  Does rule 2.00 then clarify the fact that the force play is then off and the runner on first now has a legal right to first base.  Rule 2.00 by itself says no but we all know that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I love the logic used on this site:  "it is what it is because it is" If your opinion says it's a double play then it's a double play.

 

I am not omitting the fact it is a force play.  Rule 7.01 states that a runner is entitled to a base until he is forced to vacate it and he is not forced to vacate until the batter/runner is legally entitled to the base and this does not occur until the batter/runner touches first base before he is out. 

 

In other words, the runner on first does not have to vacate the base until the batter reaches the base (safely).  At that point in time, the original runner on first then has no legal right to the base and must vacate.

 

There's no overanalysis here, just a stating the rules as they are written.

 

If you want to rely solely on rule 2.00, what if the batter is tagged out while running to first base?  Does rule 2.00 then clarify the fact that the force play is then off and the runner on first now has a legal right to first base.  Rule 2.00 by itself says no but we all know that's not the case.

 

You're missing a key word in 7.01. Once you realize it, you'll also realize it's not saying what you think it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Double Play

All Levels

All codes

All Day

Every Day

No matter what you say.

I'm assuming you're a coach, probably somewhat new to baseball?

Allow me to enlighten you with haiku:

Double Play it is

No matter what you contend

Use some common sense

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Lee Warburton

Got it!  Use common sense about how the play should be called and ignore the rules.  Seems like the general consensus on this site.

 

Nobody has still cited any actual rules to back up their claim or dispute mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Guest - 

 

I understand the frustration you are currently sensing, and I know that this response is still no going to make you happy but please read and think anyway.

 

If that runner from first is not forced of first by the batter attempting to reach first then why doesn't the runner need to be tagged at second for a traditional double play?  Say a ground ball to shortstop who flips to second baseman covering the bag.  At this time it would be exceedingly rare for the batter-runner to have already reached first but this is still a force play.  That runner from first is forced to second as soon as the ball can legally be ruled a fair ball and has touched the ground.

 

I know I am not citing a rule, I am simply appealing to your baseball sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

So in this instance, lets say the runner doesn't run.  He stays at first, touching the bag.  Now lets say the batter runner acquires first base.  Now we have TWO runners on first base.  

 

According to you, NOW you can tag R1 and get him out because the BR is now legally occupying first base.  

 

My question:  How is there EVER a double play in this situation.  How come at the pro level you don't see the runner on first just stay put?  Are you coaching your players to just stay on first on a grounder in the infield?


There is a difference in definition between "acquires" and "entitled"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

A player "acquires" a base when they are physically touching it, and are "entitled" to said base until someone FORCES them from it when they become "entitled" to it.

 

The batter-runner is "entitled" to first base as soon as he hits a fair ball that touches the ground (whether it passes first or third or is touched by a defender).  Once the BR becomes "entitled" that forces the runner on first to go to second.  Therefore, the runner on first can be tagged out while standing on the base because he is no longer "entitled" to frist base, he is "entitled" to second.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Let me present another angle on this... 

 

All three bases are considered in FAIR territory, yes? Thus, if your baserunner (designated as R1) is standing upon 1B on a pop-fly – a real silo-climber – that neatly arches down to land upon (and make contact with) his helmeted head while he's still standing on 1B, is he out?

 

Yes, he's out. "If a base runner is hit by a fair-batted ball while standing on a base, the runner is out, unless the ball has already passed an infielder OR it's a declared infield fly. The base is not a sanctuary."

 

Your rationale is based upon the misconception of 1B, or any base, being a protected safe-haven, which it is not. As soon the ball leaves the bat, R1 is no longer entitled to that base.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I love the logic used on this site:  "it is what it is because it is" If your opinion says it's a double play then it's a double play.

 

I am not omitting the fact it is a force play.  Rule 7.01 states that a runner is entitled to a base until he is forced to vacate it and he is not forced to vacate until the batter/runner is legally entitled to the base and this does not occur until the batter/runner touches first base before he is out. 

 

In other words, the runner on first does not have to vacate the base until the batter reaches the base (safely).  At that point in time, the original runner on first then has no legal right to the base and must vacate.

 

There's no overanalysis here, just a stating the rules as they are written.

 

If you want to rely solely on rule 2.00, what if the batter is tagged out while running to first base?  Does rule 2.00 then clarify the fact that the force play is then off and the runner on first now has a legal right to first base.  Rule 2.00 by itself says no but we all know that's not the case.

 

Well, since you insist on being uber-pedantic and dismissive at the same time - always a good combination - let's play your game. Your analysis is woefully flawed by both the plain text of the rule and the explanatory comment.

 

Rule 2.00 clearly states the definition of a force play is when the runner "LOSES" his right to occupy a base - in your example, 1B - by virtue of the batter becoming a batter-runner. NOT by the batter reaching first or doing a cartwheel or achieving inner peace, but the instant he becomes a batter-runner. So the runner formerly at first now has NO right to 1B and is entitled to 2B, but ONLY if he can reach prior to being tagged or the base touched by a player with secure possession of the ball. If he just lollygags at first and is tagged before reaching his entitled base, without the force being removed, he is clearly, unequivocally, and inarguably out. How could he not be? He didn't make it to his entitled base prior to being put out. By plain text of the rule, not some "attitude" or "logic" on this site.

 

Now let's examine that intervening event, the removal of the force. The comment in 2.00 is extraordinarily clear, the force is removed by the batter-runner being put out, either by tag or touching 1B. It would be utterly nonsensical to read that and not understand that prior to that event, the batter-runner being put out, the force IS NOT REMOVED. If it can't be removed, it must be in effect. When did it come into effect? As clearly stated, when the batter became a batter-runner. So your 'theory' of the batter having no right to first is absurd - if the batter has no right to 1B, how could the runner lose his entitlement to 1B? Is your argument - such that it is - that simultaneously neither runner and both runners have an entitlement to 1B?

 

I'm not sure how you can so fundamentally misunderstand a simple sentence saying the runner at 1B loses his right to that base once the batter becomes a runner, but you have indeed managed to do so. I guess that makes sense if you consider the batter a, I don't know, a fairy, a gnome, a child's plaything, whatever from the entire time he's moving at an accelerated pace from home to 1B, but in your construct he most certainly can't be a runner. Oh no, if he's a runner, then the runner on 1B has no right to that base. By rule he's lost that entitlement. So maybe he's a jogger or a really fast walker, but HEAVEN FORBID he can't be a runner.

 

Because if he is, your argument is one of the most ridiculous, abjectly and utterly baseless arguments of all time.

 

Now, where did I put that box of rat poison?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3269 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...