run down-rules involved??

[Jimurray]

The rules have errors. NCAA does not call it HIS base. Wendelstedt does not call it HIS base. When a runner slides under the tag at 3B and you are the calling umpire do you look to see if the runner that owned 3B has owned HP yet before you decide on safe or out?

 

I agree with you...

 

Similar to this one....R1/R2, 0 out.

 

Batter hits the ball directly to the first baseman, he steps on first to take off the force and throws to second to try and get R1. R1 beats the throw, and is standing on 2nd base. BUT Bengi Molina is R2 and has not reached 3rd base yet, so you're now going to call R1 out because he's not allowed to be on 2nd base yet?

 

I don't think so!

 

Another example,R1/R2, double-steal, catcher throws to second to try and get the trailing runner. I don't care if R2 has reached third base yet or not. That is irrelevant. The entitlement situation only comes into play if both runners end up on the same base.

Let me correct myself:

 

I understand your points. I would not call him "out" at 2nd on the force relieve because he reached safely. I would call him "safe". If R2 got caught in a run down and got back to 2nd base safely, then R1 is back in jeopardy and if tagged, would be out. It would require a second call, and probably clarification by the umpire.

 

The same would apply with R3 and R2 and R2 advances to third, is tagged on third. I would call him "safe". If R3 is caught in a run down and reaches 3rd base safely, he is entitled to the bag, and R2 is then back in jeopardy and if tagged, would be out. It would require a second call, and probably clarification by the umpire.

All I can say is WTF.

[Texas Manny]

 

Wow--I have 3 possible scenario's that can happen on a play like this.

 

1. R3 and R1 on the base at the same time. This does happen in the video, but neither is being tagged by the fielder while both are "on" the base at the same time. If they were both being tagged while on the base at the same time, since R3 is entitled to the base R1 would be out.

2. R3 on the base and R1 not on the base. If R3 is on the base and tagged it is nothing, if R1 is tagged while he is off the base while R3 is on the base R1 is out.

3. R3 off the base and R1 on the base. Even though R1 is not entitled to the base, he is protected by the base when R3 is not on the base. Therefor only R3 is out in the video since he is tagged while off the base, while R1 is on the base.

 

But what do I know.

I came back after the football game was over. In 3. It's not literally the base, it's his base. Which according to Manny, R3 still owns the base. A problem with the rules if you read them strictly.

 

Your (3) answer isn't correct. R2 was tagged on the base and called out, then R3 was tagged because he was off his base. Double play. R2 did not receive protection by the base when R3 was off because he didn't legally acquire the bag yet. R3 was going back to his base, which he was entitled to do since it was his at the TOP, and his error of being off the bag caused him to be out when tagged.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

The rules have errors. NCAA does not call it HIS base. Wendelstedt does not call it HIS base. When a runner slides under the tag at 3B and you are the calling umpire do you look to see if the runner that owned 3B has owned HP yet before you decide on safe or out?

 

I agree with you...

 

Similar to this one....R1/R2, 0 out.

 

Batter hits the ball directly to the first baseman, he steps on first to take off the force and throws to second to try and get R1. R1 beats the throw, and is standing on 2nd base. BUT Bengi Molina is R2 and has not reached 3rd base yet, so you're now going to call R1 out because he's not allowed to be on 2nd base yet?

 

I don't think so!

 

Another example,R1/R2, double-steal, catcher throws to second to try and get the trailing runner. I don't care if R2 has reached third base yet or not. That is irrelevant. The entitlement situation only comes into play if both runners end up on the same base. Let me correct myself:

 

I understand your points. I would not call him "out" at 2nd on the force relieve because he reached safely. I would call him "safe". If R2 got caught in a run down and got back to 2nd base safely, then R1 is back in jeopardy and if tagged, would be out. It would require a second call, and probably clarification by the umpire.

 

The same would apply with R3 and R2 and R2 advances to third, is tagged on third. I would call him "safe". If R3 is caught in a run down and reaches 3rd base safely, he is entitled to the bag, and R2 is then back in jeopardy and if tagged, would be out. It would require a second call, and probably clarification by the umpire.

All I can say is WTF.

 

Why WTF?

 

In each scenario, the preceding runner got back to his original base (no force play involved) after a previous play at that base with a trail runner, and so the trail runner was put back in jeopardy to be put out.

 

The preceding runner would only of lost the right to his bag if he was forced by R1, but the force was relieved.

 

In a double steal, if the trailing runner reaches safely on a tag play, and the preceding runner gets back to his original base safely, then the trailing runner is put in jeopardy to be put out again. A trailing runner cannot displace a preceding runner except for on a force play.

[ohlradio]

Manny, in the situation at third base he didn't get back to 3rd...he was not touching. IF he was touching it, then yes the following runner is out because the preceding runner is entitled to the base when both are touching it.

 

You agreed with me on the two situations I posted about the force being relieved and the double-steal, which use the same basis as the situation at third base tonight in the Jays/Yankees game. Yet in that situation at third base you're looking at it differently. It's the same thing. 3rd base was un-occupied when R1 reached it. He can have it UNTIL R3 returns to it because R3 is entitled to it - if both are standing on the base.

[Texas Manny]

Manny, in the situation at third base he didn't get back to 3rd...he was not touching. IF he was touching it, then yes the following runner is out because the preceding runner is entitled to the base when both are touching it.

 

You agreed with me on the two situations I posted about the force being relieved and the double-steal, which use the same basis as the situation at third base tonight in the Jays/Yankees game. Yet in that situation at third base you're looking at it differently. It's the same thing. 3rd base was un-occupied when R1 reached it. He can have it UNTIL R3 returns to it because R3 is entitled to it - if both are standing on the base.

Then why did the MLB Umpire bang the trailing runner who was standing on 3rd base "OUT!", then when they tagged the R3 who was next to his bag, but off it, he banged him "OUT!" as well for a double play?

 

Under your logic, R2 was safe because he was on the bag and R3 was out because he was no longer entitled to it. One out by your logic, but the MLB Ump banged out two guys.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to fully understand. That's why I am asking.

[umpstu]

 

Manny, in the situation at third base he didn't get back to 3rd...he was not touching. IF he was touching it, then yes the following runner is out because the preceding runner is entitled to the base when both are touching it.

 

You agreed with me on the two situations I posted about the force being relieved and the double-steal, which use the same basis as the situation at third base tonight in the Jays/Yankees game. Yet in that situation at third base you're looking at it differently. It's the same thing. 3rd base was un-occupied when R1 reached it. He can have it UNTIL R3 returns to it because R3 is entitled to it - if both are standing on the base.

Then why did the MLB Umpire bang the trailing runner who was standing on 3rd base "OUT!", then when they tagged the R3 who was next to his bag, but off it, he banged him "OUT!" as well for a double play?

 

Under your logic, R2 was safe because he was on the bag and R3 was out because he was no longer entitled to it. One out by your logic, but the MLB Ump banged out two guys.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to fully understand. That's why I am asking.

 

I think he kicked the call. What school?

[Texas Manny]

 

 

Manny, in the situation at third base he didn't get back to 3rd...he was not touching. IF he was touching it, then yes the following runner is out because the preceding runner is entitled to the base when both are touching it.

 

You agreed with me on the two situations I posted about the force being relieved and the double-steal, which use the same basis as the situation at third base tonight in the Jays/Yankees game. Yet in that situation at third base you're looking at it differently. It's the same thing. 3rd base was un-occupied when R1 reached it. He can have it UNTIL R3 returns to it because R3 is entitled to it - if both are standing on the base.

Then why did the MLB Umpire bang the trailing runner who was standing on 3rd base "OUT!", then when they tagged the R3 who was next to his bag, but off it, he banged him "OUT!" as well for a double play?

 

Under your logic, R2 was safe because he was on the bag and R3 was out because he was no longer entitled to it. One out by your logic, but the MLB Ump banged out two guys.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to fully understand. That's why I am asking.

 

I think he kicked the call. What school?

 

Hunter Wendelstedt's.

[ohlradio]

 

Then why did the MLB Umpire bang the trailing runner who was standing on 3rd base "OUT!", then when they tagged the R3 who was next to his bag, but off it, he banged him "OUT!" as well for a double play?

 

Under your logic, R2 was safe because he was on the bag and R3 was out because he was no longer entitled to it. One out by your logic, but the MLB Ump banged out two guys.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to fully understand. That's why I am asking.

 

 

In the maze of arms and legs I believe Iasgona THOUGHT Reyes (R3) and Lawrie (R1) were both touching the base when Lawrie was tagged, hence calling Lawrie out. Then, when he saw Reyes tagged while off the base, he called him out as well. But in reality, Reyes was not touching the base and therefore Lawrie was safe.

 

Once again - it's the same basis as the double-steal and Bengi Molina plays, which you agreed with.

[umpstu]

 

 

Then why did the MLB Umpire bang the trailing runner who was standing on 3rd base "OUT!", then when they tagged the R3 who was next to his bag, but off it, he banged him "OUT!" as well for a double play?

 

Under your logic, R2 was safe because he was on the bag and R3 was out because he was no longer entitled to it. One out by your logic, but the MLB Ump banged out two guys.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to fully understand. That's why I am asking.

 

 

In the maze of arms and legs I believe Iasgona THOUGHT Reyes (R3) and Lawrie (R1) were both touching the base when Lawrie was tagged, hence calling Lawrie out. Then, when he saw Reyes tagged while off the base, he called him out as well. But in reality, Reyes was not touching the base and therefore Lawrie was safe.

 

Once again - it's the same basis as the double-steal and Bengi Molina plays, which you agreed with.

 

Agreed

[Texas Manny]

So y'all are saying that Iassgona kicked the play and called a runner out improperly? Two outs were recorded.

[mstaylor]

I have tried to read this thread but it's been too long a day. According to the video Iassonga improperly called the trail runner out. A runner is entitled to a base until he legally attains the next base, he is put out or loses right to the base because of being forced. In this plat R3 started home but stopped and tried to return to third. R2 advanced to third and stood there. When R3 returns, if both are standing on third then R2 is liable to be called out. If the fielder tags R3, then tags R2 then R2 is out unless R3 steps off before R2 is tagged. 

You could a complete fiasco if you have a smart enough R3. He has to make sure he is touching the base if the fielder tries to tag him but be quick enough to step off when the fielder tries to tag R2. He could theoretically step on and off and never get an out.  

[Lindsay]

We all will have to relearn the rules. Gil, take over from here please.

Sure thing.

 

It appears R1 was improperly declared out because U3 believed R1/R3 had simultaneous occupation of third base.

 

Rule 7.03(a) contains a conditional construct—an "If" statement, if you will. Rule 7.03(a) has been reproduced below with bold face added.

 

Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base the following runner shall be out when tagged and the preceding runner is entitled to the base, unless Rule 7.03(b) applies.

 

Logic flow is (removing the "preceding runner is entitled" line because that's stipulated here since no force play applies)...

IF two runners are touching a base, THEN the following runner [who is touching the base] shall be out when tagged.

 

Logic tells us if the original statement is true, then its contrapositive must be true. Therefore, the following must be true:

 

IF the following runner [who is touching the base] is not out when tagged, THEN two runners are not touching a base.

 

Rule 7.03(a) for U3's call ruling R1 out (thought he saw simultaneous occupation), 7.08© for U3 ruling R3 out.

With the benefit of replay, only 7.08© applies and only R3 is out.

[johnnyg08]

Batter hits the ball directly to the first baseman, he steps on first to take off the force and throws to second to try and get R1. R1 beats the throw, and is standing on 2nd base. BUT Bengi Molina is R2 and has not reached 3rd base yet, so you're now going to call R1 out because he's not allowed to be on 2nd base yet?

 

I don't think so!

 

Another example,R1/R2, double-steal, catcher throws to second to try and get the trailing runner. I don't care if R2 has reached third base yet or not. That is irrelevant. The entitlement situation only comes into play if both runners end up on the same base.

I agree with this.

[dumbdumb]

I have tried to read this thread but it's been too long a day. According to the video Iassonga improperly called the trail runner out. A runner is entitled to a base until he legally attains the next base, he is put out or loses right to the base because of being forced. In this plat R3 started home but stopped and tried to return to third. R2 advanced to third and stood there. When R3 returns, if both are standing on third then R2 is liable to be called out. If the fielder tags R3, then tags R2 then R2 is out unless R3 steps off before R2 is tagged. 

You could a complete fiasco if you have a smart enough R3. He has to make sure he is touching the base if the fielder tries to tag him but be quick enough to step off when the fielder tries to tag R2. He could theoretically step on and off and never get an out.  

Agree with this.

 

From the OP. The only way I have a double play in the OP is ""if"" in 3BU judgment (rightly or wrongly from the video), he has both runners on the base at the same time, and they are both tagged while on the base at the same time then R1 who is not entitled to the base is out, and when R3 comes off the base he is tagged and is out just like any runner who is not on a base.

 

Otherwise, the individual who is on the base is protected by the base, while the individual who is off the base is liable to be put out.

[Thunderheads]

OK, so to clarify .............. jeeeeez ...............

 

Reyes , once off the bag doesn't occupy it, thus he's liable to be put out, ...meanwhile Lawrie CAN attain 3rd because Reyes vacated?

[noumpere]

 

But it is a "Time Play" since two are out, and neither R3 or R2 are being forced to advance. Tags are required.

 

 

See my answer above. R2 never had legal entitlement to 3rd base until R3 was put out, forced out (could not happen) or scored legally.

 

 

Manny, your way off base (hah!) on this one.  Theres a difference between "occupying" a base and being "entitled" to the base and you need to decide which applies at a given time.  In this play (R2 on third tagged before R3 touches the plate) its the occupying part -- and since R2 occupies third he cant be out.

 

Now, if both are on the base then the "entitled" portion comes in and R2 is out.  Or if R3 is guilty of interference then the "entitled" comes into play and R2 returns to second.

 

Edit:  Sorry for the post.  I thought I was at the end when I responded and didnt realize the thread went on for more pages.. 

[grayhawk]

 

I have tried to read this thread but it's been too long a day. According to the video Iassonga improperly called the trail runner out. A runner is entitled to a base until he legally attains the next base, he is put out or loses right to the base because of being forced. In this plat R3 started home but stopped and tried to return to third. R2 advanced to third and stood there. When R3 returns, if both are standing on third then R2 is liable to be called out. If the fielder tags R3, then tags R2 then R2 is out unless R3 steps off before R2 is tagged. 

You could a complete fiasco if you have a smart enough R3. He has to make sure he is touching the base if the fielder tries to tag him but be quick enough to step off when the fielder tries to tag R2. He could theoretically step on and off and never get an out.  

Agree with this.

 

From the OP. The only way I have a double play in the OP is ""if"" in 3BU judgment (rightly or wrongly from the video), he has both runners on the base at the same time, and they are both tagged while on the base at the same time then R1 who is not entitled to the base if out, and when R3 comes off the base he is tagged and is out just like any runner who is not on a base.

 

Otherwise, the individual who is on the base is protected by the base, while the individual who is off the base is liable to be put out.

 

 

Just a point of clarification on the bolded above.  BOTH runners do not need to be tagged - only the runner who does not legally occupy the base (in this case, R1) needs to be tagged.  Of course, they usually tag both runners, so then it's just a matter of good mechanics and communication to let everyone know which runner is out and which one is not.

[Texas Manny]

After reviewing the video, stop and start, Issagona got the ruling correct. Reyes recontacted his base at 0:09 seconds in the video, making 3rd base his legally again. R1 is now in jeopardy as he is no longer entitled to the bag. Two men are on the bag at once. R1 was tagged for the first out, and then Reyes who fell off the bag. Double play. Ruling is correct, since Reyes legally reacquired his base and fell off while the tag was applied to R1. Then Reyes was tagged for being off the bag.

 

To say Reyes falling off his bag is an attempt to advance, or vacating, is very weak. The spirit of the rule is that two runners cannot occupy a base at the same time. I say "Good call"

[Texas Manny]

 

 

But it is a "Time Play" since two are out, and neither R3 or R2 are being forced to advance. Tags are required.

 

 

See my answer above. R2 never had legal entitlement to 3rd base until R3 was put out, forced out (could not happen) or scored legally.

 

 

Manny, your way off base (hah!) on this one.  Theres a difference between "occupying" a base and being "entitled" to the base and you need to decide which applies at a given time.  In this play (R2 on third tagged before R3 touches the plate) its the occupying part -- and since R2 occupies third he cant be out.

 

Now, if both are on the base then the "entitled" portion comes in and R2 is out.  Or if R3 is guilty of interference then the "entitled" comes into play and R2 returns to second.

 

Edit:  Sorry for the post.  I thought I was at the end when I responded and didnt realize the thread went on for more pages.. 

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to as being offbase, and frankly, last night was a whirlwind of responding that got me confused. I see your edit, so are you saying I'm still off base, or not? Please let me know what you think I'm off base about.

 

Yes, I admit that occupying and entitled were a bit confused last night. I got it straightened out though. Thank God my headache is gone.

[Texas Manny]

I finally worked this out.

One out. R3 and R1. R3 and R1 are "entitled" to their respective bases, under 7.01 and 7.02.

Batter hits/bunts the pitch, and R3 VACATES 3rd base and starts to advance home. R1 is advancing to second by force, BR towards 1st Base.

Fielders choice and throws home. Cuts R3 off. R3 gets in a retreat rundown.

R1 sees no one paying attention to him, and goes to 3rd base, OCCUPYING IT.

R3 gets back to 3rd base safely, to which he is still ENTITLED to.

R1 who was legally OCCUPYING 3rd base is now in jeopardy to be put out.

While R1 is tagged while standing on 3rd base, R3 falls off the bag in an attempt to stay on the bag.

Rule 7.03 states that if two men are on one base, the trailing runner shall be declared out.

Issagona calls the trail runner, R1, OUT, because while he is occupying 3rd base, he hasn't earned ENTITLEMENT yet.

Then the second tag is applied to R3 because R3 is off the bag. R3 is out because he is off the bag. 7.08C. Double play.


To argue that R3 falling off the bag, when he was trying to stay on it, represents VACATING, is a very weak and not plausible argument. R1 occupied a base not entitled to. He's out by Rule 7.03 and R3 is out because he was tagged off base, which is Rule 7.08C.
 

[hbk314]

I finally worked this out.

One out. R3 and R1. R3 and R1 are "entitled" to their respective bases, under 7.01 and 7.02.

Batter hits/bunts the pitch, and R3 VACATES 3rd base and starts to advance home. R1 is advancing to second by force, BR towards 1st Base.

Fielders choice and throws home. Cuts R3 off. R3 gets in a retreat rundown.

R1 sees no one paying attention to him, and goes to 3rd base, OCCUPYING IT.

R3 gets back to 3rd base safely, to which he is still ENTITLED to.

R1 who was legally OCCUPYING 3rd base is now in jeopardy to be put out.

While R1 is tagged while standing on 3rd base, R3 falls off the bag in an attempt to stay on the bag.

Rule 7.03 states that if two men are on one base, the trailing runner shall be declared out.

Issagona calls the trail runner, R1, OUT, because while he is occupying 3rd base, he hasn't earned ENTITLEMENT yet.

Then the second tag is applied to R3 because R3 is off the bag. R3 is out because he is off the bag. 7.08C. Double play.

To argue that R3 falling off the bag, when he was trying to stay on it, represents VACATING, is a very weak and not plausible argument. R1 occupied a base not entitled to. He's out by Rule 7.03 and R3 is out because he was tagged off base, which is Rule 7.08C.

 

 

 

R3 wasn't on 3rd base when R1 was tagged. If he had been, it would have been a double play.

 

R1 should have been safe, R3 out.

[Texas Manny]

 

I finally worked this out.

One out. R3 and R1. R3 and R1 are "entitled" to their respective bases, under 7.01 and 7.02.

Batter hits/bunts the pitch, and R3 VACATES 3rd base and starts to advance home. R1 is advancing to second by force, BR towards 1st Base.

Fielders choice and throws home. Cuts R3 off. R3 gets in a retreat rundown.

R1 sees no one paying attention to him, and goes to 3rd base, OCCUPYING IT.

R3 gets back to 3rd base safely, to which he is still ENTITLED to.

R1 who was legally OCCUPYING 3rd base is now in jeopardy to be put out.

While R1 is tagged while standing on 3rd base, R3 falls off the bag in an attempt to stay on the bag.

Rule 7.03 states that if two men are on one base, the trailing runner shall be declared out.

Issagona calls the trail runner, R1, OUT, because while he is occupying 3rd base, he hasn't earned ENTITLEMENT yet.

Then the second tag is applied to R3 because R3 is off the bag. R3 is out because he is off the bag. 7.08C. Double play.

To argue that R3 falling off the bag, when he was trying to stay on it, represents VACATING, is a very weak and not plausible argument. R1 occupied a base not entitled to. He's out by Rule 7.03 and R3 is out because he was tagged off base, which is Rule 7.08C.

 

 

 

R3 wasn't on 3rd base when R1 was tagged. If he had been, it would have been a double play.

 

R1 should have been safe, R3 out.

 

R3 had retouched his base and then fell off while R1 was both occupying and being tagged. It is clearly visible in the video.

 

R3 reinstated his entitlement by retouching. R1 is out by 7.03. R3 is out by 7.08C

 

If you are calling R3 falling off the base while trying to stay on as vacating, IMHO, that holds no water.

 

[grayhawk]

I finally worked this out. One out. R3 and R1. R3 and R1 are "entitled" to their respective bases, under 7.01 and 7.02. Batter hits/bunts the pitch, and R3 VACATES 3rd base and starts to advance home. R1 is advancing to second by force, BR towards 1st Base. Fielders choice and throws home. Cuts R3 off. R3 gets in a retreat rundown. R1 sees no one paying attention to him, and goes to 3rd base, OCCUPYING IT. R3 gets back to 3rd base safely, to which he is still ENTITLED to. R1 who was legally OCCUPYING 3rd base is now in jeopardy to be put out. While R1 is tagged while standing on 3rd base, R3 falls off the bag in an attempt to stay on the bag. Rule 7.03 states that if two men are on one base, the trailing runner shall be declared out. Issagona calls the trail runner, R1, OUT, because while he is occupying 3rd base, he hasn't earned ENTITLEMENT yet. Then the second tag is applied to R3 because R3 is off the bag. R3 is out because he is off the bag. 7.08C. Double play. To argue that R3 falling off the bag, when he was trying to stay on it, represents VACATING, is a very weak and not plausible argument. R1 occupied a base not entitled to. He's out by Rule 7.03 and R3 is out because he was tagged off base, which is Rule 7.08C.

R3 wasn't on 3rd base when R1 was tagged. If he had been, it would have been a double play. R1 should have been safe, R3 out. R3 had retouched his base and fell off while R1 was being tagged. R3 reinstated his entitlement by it. R1 is out by 7.03. R3 is out by 7.08C If you are calling R3 falling off the base while trying to stay on as vacating, IMHO, that holds no water. They both have to be touching 3rd base for R1 to be called out. Don't make this harder than it is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[mstaylor]

I am on my phone so I am not going to try and watch the video again. If he is in contact when the trail runner was tagged then fell off then the trail is out. If he fell off before then that tag means nothing.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[Texas Manny]

Honestly, I'm not. Now you are reading too strictly. The rule is to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage with two runners at the same bag. If you are going to use strict interpretation of the word "IF" in 7.03, then you are negating the spirit of the rule because in his zeal, R3 fell off the bag, trying to remain on it, and you're saying that that constituted vacating? I can't say that is correct. R3's intent was to stay on the bag.

 

Vacating is a voluntary action. It requires the runner to make a deliberate motion to leave the bag. Loosing your balance and falling of the bag is an involuntary action. His intent was to stay on the bag, not come off. Although an involuntary action can cause you to be put in jeopardy, just as Reyes was by coming off the bag.

 

You have two runners trying to hold the same bag, are right there next to the bag, they are both trying to occupy it. One is entitled. One is not. I say Issagona ruled correctly. Trail runner out for 7.03 and Reyes out for 7.08C.

 

I'd be curious to see what the League office has to say about it.