Jump to content

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

May I atleast explain my rationale?

Question

Guest Christopher

In re: The title to the question I posted on March 20 -'18 was "Two Runners Occupying Same Base"  I asked : What if the F3 had simply done NOTHING- wouldn't they have BOTH been out for 'occupying the same base?". This was soon answered by NavyChiefBlue in which he said- "F3 has to do something.Nether runner is out for just occupying the same base." This sounded logical and so I was satisfied with the answer at the time, however, now I'm not so sure. Consider this: Let's say F3 did exactly what I had proposed -'NOTHING'?-So with your logic, when play resumed Young and Bradley Jr would have both been standing on first base. (No one has 'tagged' them- they're still safe) Maybe I'd be wrong, but if I was ruling on it: Double Play!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

First, you haven't provide a rationale for calling a double play; you've simply repeated your conclusion.

Second, you would be wrong because there is no rule-based reason for calling them both out.

Third, what umpire would allow play to resume with both runners at first? What defensive coach would not yell at his fielders to tag someone? It's so unlikely, it's not even a TWP.

Fourth, if I were the PU and you called both runners out, and the OC came out to argue, don't look to me for much help, as I would be speechless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0

By all means, if you have rationale, please provide it.

The fact is, one of those runners is entitled to the base, so there is ZERO rationale to call both out, automatically.  But I'll be really impressed if you come up with something that says even one of them is out automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Christopher

What I think Young thought as he led off 1B- and the sharply GROUNDED ball by Jackie Bradley Jr was fielded cleanly by F3- WAS THAT IT WAS CAUght in the air !- so was why he ran back to first. I was merely basing my opinion that the F3 wouldn't be required to do anything (i.e.NOTHING) based on this premise: " No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time." PER SE, (in or by itself) I would be right!!!! But I guess I'm not - so touche'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Quote

5.06 Running the Bases

(a) Occupying the Base

(1) 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.

(2) 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 5.06(b)(2) applies.

(b) Advancing Bases

(1) In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.06(c). In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base.

(2) If a runner is forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner and two runners are touching a base to which the following runner is forced, the following runner is entitled to the base and the preceding runner shall be out when tagged or when a fielder possesses the ball and touches the base to which such preceding runner is forced.

Here's an excerpt from the Official Rules of Baseball (used by MLB).  Your citation "No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time" is not a direct quote, but is only part of Rule 5.06(a)(2), and must be considered in the entire context of Rule 5.06(a)(2), which says exactly what everyone in all 3 of your threads has been telling you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Christopher

What I think Young thought as he led off 1B- and the sharply GROUNDED ball by Jackie Bradley Jr was fielded cleanly by F3- WAS THAT IT WAS CAUght in the air !- so was why he ran back to first. I was merely basing my opinion that the F3 wouldn't be required to do anything (i.e.NOTHING) based on this premise: " No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time." PER SE, (in or by itself) I would be right!!!! But I guess I'm not - so touche'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, Guest Christopher said:

What I think Young thought as he led off 1B- and the sharply GROUNDED ball by Jackie Bradley Jr was fielded cleanly by F3- WAS THAT IT WAS CAUght in the air !- so was why he ran back to first. I was merely basing my opinion that the F3 wouldn't be required to do anything (i.e.NOTHING) based on this premise: " No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time." PER SE, (in or by itself) I would be right!!!! But I guess I'm not - so touche'.

Well, first, two runners can occupy the same base at the same time...it's just that only one of them is safe.   I still don't see how you leap to both of them being out.  I can understand believing that one of them is out automatically, but not both.

The rules also don't allow for two pitchers at the same time, but that doesn't mean you eject both pitchers who are standing on the rubber.  There are many cases in baseball (and life in general) where you are only allowed one of something...and if there are two you remove the ONE that isn't supposed to be there, not both.

 

Share this post


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

In re: The title to the question I posted on March 20 -'18 was "Two Runners Occupying Same Base"  I asked : What if the F3 had simply done NOTHING- wouldn't they have BOTH been out for 'occupying the same base?". This was soon answered by NavyChiefBlue in which he said- "F3 has to do something.Nether runner is out for just occupying the same base." This sounded logical and so I was satisfied with the answer at the time, however, now I'm not so sure. Consider this: Let's say F3 did exactly what I had proposed -'NOTHING'?-So with your logic, when play resumed Young and Bradley Jr would have both been standing on first base. (No one has 'tagged' them- they're still safe) Maybe I'd be wrong, but if I was ruling on it: Double Play!

Play wouldn't resume.  The umpires would not let F1 pitch until one of the runners was put out, or one of the runners advanced to the next base.

 

Just occupying the same base in NOT cause to be declared out.  But, the base is a "safe haven" only for one of them.  The other is out when tagged or, if the runner is forced, when the next base is tagged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, Guest Christopher said:

What I think Young thought as he led off 1B- and the sharply GROUNDED ball by Jackie Bradley Jr was fielded cleanly by F3- WAS THAT IT WAS CAUght in the air !- so was why he ran back to first. I was merely basing my opinion that the F3 wouldn't be required to do anything (i.e.NOTHING) based on this premise: " No two runners can occupy the same base at the same time." PER SE, (in or by itself) I would be right!!!! But I guess I'm not - so touche'.

I think I see where you're coming from, but rationales don't matter when we have rules that are black and white. The best way to understand situations is to find them in the rules books or case plays books because chances are, if you're thinking of it or have seen it, it's been addressed already and written so that we can all benefit from others' experiences. Another issue is when watching a game on TV, commentators are not rules experts and can many times confuse and already confusing play. Listening to them explain something isn't always enlightening.

Asking umpires here is a very good way to get the answers you seek. Just keep an open mind to the explanations you get.  They'll be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mods: this question now has 3 threads, has been sufficiently answered several times, and raises no rules or interpretation issue worthy of continued discussion. Please be alert to trolling from this OP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The good ol stump the ump thingie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×