Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest R.Z.

Double steal

Question

Guest R.Z.

Fed:  R2-R1 no out.  Runners attempt double steal but leave too early and F1 steps off legally and throws to F5 who has R2 in a rundown.  R1 gets to 2nd after

which R2   commits interference.  Is R1 allowed to stay at 2nd?  Did R2 technically still "own" 2nd and might this preclude R1 from now acquiring the base?  Does

the mere fact that interference occurred on this play mean R1 must return to 1st?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

R1 is returned to 1B if R2 never gained 3B.

When interference is called, all runners return to their last legally acquired base at the time of the interference. 

In this case, R2 gets caught in a rundown between 2B and 3B. He has not yet reached 3B, which means he still "occupies" 2B. R1 cannot legally acquire 2B  until R2 touches 3rd.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0

From the 2016 BRD (section 344, p. 227):

Play 205-344:  R1, R3, 1 out. The pitcher picks off R3 and, while the rundown continues, R1 advances all the way to third. R1 is standing on third when R3 reaches up and deflects the ball away from any fielder. Ruling:  R3 is out. In FED, R1 keeps third. In NCAA/OBR, R1 returns to second. (Adapted from NCAA national test, 2012)

2010 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretation

SITUATION 13: R3 is on third and R2 is on second with no outs. Both runners attempt a double steal. As R3 gets into a rundown between home and third, R2 advances and stays on third base. With R2 on third base, R3 commits interference during the rundown. 

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R3 is declared out for the interference. R2 will be kept at third base since he had legally reached third at the time of the interference. (8-2-9, 8-2-8) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Wow! Thanks @Senor Azul. I 100% disagree with that interp. FED rules say the same thing as the others. I don't see how the powers that be can interpret it this way. 

(8-2-9) In the event of interference, a runner returns to the base he had legally reached at the time of the interference.

(8-2-8)  A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to this base until he is put out, or until he legally touches the next base while it is unoccupied

 (8-2-8a) If two runners are on the same base, at the same time and both are tagged, the following runner is declared out. 

^^^ That tells me even FED says  the following runner has not legally acquired the base if the preceding runner has not touched the next base.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Rich, I think your conflating 'legally reached' with 'legally entitled'.

When R2 reaches 3B in the case play, he has legally reached it: he reached touched the base, and in doing so he did not interfere, he did not slide illegally, he did not dive over a fielder, etc.

Legal entitlement ("right to a base") comes into play only when 2 runners occupy a base. When that happens, only one of them is entitled to the base: if both are tagged on the base, the one not entitled to it is out. Otherwise, whenever a runner is on a base, he is not out when tagged.

A runner can legally reach a base to which he is not entitled. If he's the only runner there, he's not out when tagged. Consider: same setup as the case play. R3 does NOT interfere, but is winning his rundown. The defense tries to play on R2 sliding into 3B, but the throw is late and they tag R2 as he's on the base. R3 has not scored when that tag is applied: will you call R2 out?

For FED, which holds that runners return to their TOI bases for all cases of runner INT, the case play is a correct application of their rules. Other codes return runners to their "TOP" (in the OP, "time of pickoff") bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
24 minutes ago, maven said:

A runner can legally reach a base to which he is not entitled. If he's the only runner there, he's not out when tagged. Consider: same setup as the case play. R3 does NOT interfere, but is winning his rundown. The defense tries to play on R2 sliding into 3B, but the throw is late and they tag R2 as he's on the base. R3 has not scored when that tag is applied: will you call R2 out?

Thanks maven. That makes the FED interp valid for sure. Still, I disagree in principle and fairness. In such cases, there's virtually no penalty for a runner interfering in a rundown other than that runner losing his right to try to avoid being put out. At the end of the day, it's just an out and the lead runner is still on 2nd. 

Consider this. R1, R2. Double steal. Throw to 3B skips a little past F5. R2 takes off for home, R1 for 3B. R2 gets in a rundown while R1 reaches 3B, the R2 slaps the ball out of F2's hand applying the tag. Not only is there virtually no penalty for the action of R2, the offense has now moved the lead runner from 2B to 3B on a the play. 

That said, it's a FED difference I wasn't aware of and now I know. Always learning :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, maven said:

Rich, I think your conflating 'legally reached' with 'legally entitled'.

When R2 reaches 3B in the case play, he has legally reached it: he reached touched the base, and in doing so he did not interfere, he did not slide illegally, he did not dive over a fielder, etc.

Legal entitlement ("right to a base") comes into play only when 2 runners occupy a base. When that happens, only one of them is entitled to the base: if both are tagged on the base, the one not entitled to it is out. Otherwise, whenever a runner is on a base, he is not out when tagged.

A runner can legally reach a base to which he is not entitled. If he's the only runner there, he's not out when tagged. Consider: same setup as the case play. R3 does NOT interfere, but is winning his rundown. The defense tries to play on R2 sliding into 3B, but the throw is late and they tag R2 as he's on the base. R3 has not scored when that tag is applied: will you call R2 out?

For FED, which holds that runners return to their TOI bases for all cases of runner INT, the case play is a correct application of their rules. Other codes return runners to their "TOP" (in the OP, "time of pickoff") bases.

It's all about semantics. Legally touched, legally entitled, legally reached, occupied. OBR rules differently. NCAA appears to reverse its ruling as in FED (2011 BRD) by a 2012 test question (BRD 2016)

 OBR returns runners TOI unless otherwise provided in the rules:

"PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. (Definition of Terms (Interference))

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment):
........
If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and is standing on third base
when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base.
This same principle applies if there is a run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second
(the reasoning is that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Richvee said:

Thanks maven. That makes the FED interp valid for sure. Still, I disagree in principle and fairness. In such cases, there's virtually no penalty for a runner interfering in a rundown other than that runner losing his right to try to avoid being put out. At the end of the day, it's just an out and the lead runner is still on 2nd. 

Consider this. R1, R2. Double steal. Throw to 3B skips a little past F5. R2 takes off for home, R1 for 3B. R2 gets in a rundown while R1 reaches 3B, the R2 slaps the ball out of F2's hand applying the tag. Not only is there virtually no penalty for the action of R2, the offense has now moved the lead runner from 2B to 3B on a the play. 

That said, it's a FED difference I wasn't aware of and now I know. Always learning :cool:

@Richvee, how could you possibly not know that this is the FED ruling/interpretation???  Shame on you.  I mean there is absolutely NOOOOOOO way a shmuck on the NFHS rules committee would have gotten this wrong!  Impossible I tell ya! LOL.  

:sarcasm:  (Glad I wasn't the first one to respond to the OP.  Phew, I missed looking like an idiot by thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, lawump said:

@Richvee, how could you possibly not know that this is the FED ruling/interpretation???  Shame on you.  I mean there is absolutely NOOOOOOO way a shmuck on the NFHS rules committee would have gotten this wrong!  Impossible I tell ya! LOL.  

:sarcasm:  (Glad I wasn't the first one to respond to the OP.  Phew, I missed looking like an idiot by thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much.)

Carl Childress believed that that was also the NCAA ruling in his 2011 BRD. Then there was a test question in 2012 and a new AR in 2013 which has now changed into a note to the rule:

"8-1:

c.    If a runner is in a run down between bases and the following runner occupies
the same base the first runner has left, the second runner cannot be put out
while occupying said base. If the first runner, however, returns safely to the
base last touched and both runners then are occupying the same base, the
second runner is out, if touched with the ball and there is no force.
Note No runner shall advance on an interference play called on another runner. A
runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached and touched the
next base."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

Carl Childress believed that that was also the NCAA ruling in his 2011 BRD. Then there was a test question in 2012 and a new AR in 2013 which has now changed into a note to the rule:

"8-1:

c.    If a runner is in a run down between bases and the following runner occupies
the same base the first runner has left, the second runner cannot be put out
while occupying said base. If the first runner, however, returns safely to the
base last touched and both runners then are occupying the same base, the
second runner is out, if touched with the ball and there is no force.
Note No runner shall advance on an interference play called on another runner. A
runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached and touched the
next base."

The NCAA has slowly, but consistently, as a whole moved toward OBR, and away from FED, over the last decade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×