Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Sign in to follow this  
Gfoley4

Yankees Orioles game potential double play

Recommended Posts

here's the clip. http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/04/07/1910539683/1523064599021/asset_2500K.mp4 Similar play happened in 2015:

 back in 2015. But looks like today's crew messed it up per rule 5.09(b)(9)Comment, which did not exist in the 2015 Cubs-Mets game.

 

"5.09(b) Any runner is out when: (9) He passes a preceding runner before such runner is out;

Rule 5.09(b)(9) Comment: A runner may be deemed to have passed a preceding (i.e., lead) runner based on his actions or the actions of a preceding runner. PLAY—Runners on second base and third base with one out. The runner from third base (i.e., the lead runner) makes an advance toward home and is caught in a rundown between third base and home plate. Believing the lead runner will be tagged out, the runner at second base (i.e., the trailing runner) advances to third base. Before being tagged, the lead runner runs back to and beyond third base toward left field. At this time, the trailing runner has passed the lead runner as a result of the lead runner’s actions. As a result, the trailing runner is out and third base is unoccupied. The lead runner is entitled to third base if he returns to touch it before he is out, see Rule 5.06(a)(1), unless he is declared out for abandoning the bases."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

The new case play, I believe added after (because of) that Mets/Cubs play is exactlywhat happened tonight in NY. I agree I think the crew missed it. Surprised Showalter didn't protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meals admits he was wrong: 

Wonder if anything more will come out of this, besides probably an internal memo to every crew telling them to not F*#K this one up if it happens again haha.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps most remarkably, an announcer actually looked in the rule book rather than pontificate from on high about his rules knowledge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

Perhaps most remarkably, an announcer actually looked in the rule book rather than pontificate from on high about his rules knowledge.

AND..They actually got someone on the phone  to explain it..The name escapes me but he's touted as a rules expert. Progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Richvee said:

AND..They actually got someone on the phone  to explain it..The name escapes me but he's touted as a rules expert. Progress. 

Some dude in Ohio?

Rhymes with "Raven"?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, conbo61 said:

Some dude in Ohio?

Rhymes with "Raven"?

Good one!

As I recall, we went round and round on that one. Even the black-letter rule sticklers have no wiggle room now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

Meals admits he was wrong: 

Wonder if anything more will come out of this, besides probably an internal memo to every crew telling them to not F*#K this one up if it happens again haha.

 

Why does Meals say an abandonment call would be an option? Why wouldn't passing 3 feet past the bag down the foul line with a tag attempt being made be an out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Richvee said:

The new case play, I believe added after (because of) that Mets/Cubs play is exactlywhat happened tonight in NY. I agree I think the crew missed it. Surprised Showalter didn't protest.

If it was a miss, isn't this just as aggregious as the crew that was suspended and fined and all members in the crew taken out of consideration for special events that year, when the team lost the game and the protest was ruled upon and upheld?

Just because one is living with the angels when the protesting team wins the game, making the protest a mute point including a retraction of the original protest, does that suddenly absolve everyone of the originally missed interpretation on the field.

Is the above fair, under the rules of common sense and fair play to all umpires using a merit based system, or is it still the law of the jungle so to speak, using the old cliche about life that says, life is not always fair and sometimes it is better to be lucky than good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think FED addresses this exactly like OBR does. If it happened to me tomorrow in a FED game, I'd get two. I think it's easier to explain that once R3 retreats behind 3B with R2 on 3B, R2 has passed R3 and is out immediately. Then R3 was tagged off the base. I remember the lengthy discussion about this before the case play found it's way into the rule book. Always seemed most logical to me that this is a "passing" event and treat it as such. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoops said:

Would FED and NCAA support 2 outs on this play?

Given the lack of anything authoritative to the contrary, I'd have to say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think FED addresses this exactly like OBR does. If it happened to me tomorrow in a FED game, I'd get two. I think it's easier to explain that once R3 retreats behind 3B with R2 on 3B, R2 has passed R3 and is out immediately. Then R3 was tagged off the base. I remember the lengthy discussion about this before the case play found it's way into the rule book. Always seemed most logical to me that this is a "passing" event and treat it as such. 

Why would R3 need to be tagged once he proceeded past 3B? Similar to the "skunk in the outfield"  requirement once a tag is attempted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Why would R3 need to be tagged once he proceeded past 3B? Similar to the "skunk in the outfield"  requirement once a tag is attempted.

Until R3 is put out, the only out is on R2 for passing. I don't see the parallel with the skunk in the outfield play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Until R3 is put out, the only out is on R2 for passing. I don't see the parallel with the skunk in the outfield play.

Isn’t he evading a tag attempt and deviating more than 3 feet from his direct base path to 3B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Isn’t he evading a tag attempt and deviating more than 3 feet from his direct base path to 3B?

How could be passed if he was never in a baseline?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tborze said:

How could be passed if he was never in a baseline?  

R3 was passed by R2 the moment both feet were on the outfield side of 3B, R2 is out for passing. R3 continues at least 3 feet towards the outfield to avoid a tag. He’s out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

R3 was passed by R2 the moment both feet were on the outfield side of 3B, R2 is out for passing. R3 continues at least 3 feet towards the outfield to avoid a tag. He’s out. 

Yeh, I assumed you were saying R3 was out once he passed 3rd?  Therefore, once R3 was out R2 is not. You can't be called out for passing a retired runner. Others are saying two out here. If there was no R2, could R3 retreat back toward to second to avoid a tag? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Yeh, I assumed you were saying R3 was out once he passed 3rd?  Therefore, once R3 was out R2 is not. You can't be called out for passing a retired runner. Others are saying two out here. If there was no R2, could R3 retreat back toward to second to avoid a tag? 

The two outs are by rule -- the first for R2 passing R3, and the second by either a tag or abandonment or out of the baseline.  Any of the above is possible depending on what specifically happens.  In the play in the video, once F2 tags R2, then there's no play (at that moment) being made on R3.  So, R3 is not immediately out.  IT does look (as I recall -- I didn't watcher) like R3 peels off and heads for the dugout with the body language indicating he believes he' out -- that's the abandonment (and it's judgment).  I don't see R3 continue more that three feet once F2 again begins chasing him -- but if he did, you could have the out of the baseline call.  And, finally, there was a tag -- so that's certainly an out.

And no, R3 (even without an R2) can't return toward second  (well, he can go in that direction, but it's treated just as any baserunning path and subject to the three feet.)  Even if R3 somehow makes it all the way to second with no tag / call, that's not a safe haven for R3.  In fact, he might even be out just for attempting it (I forget the specific interp on this at the moment.)

Finally, this differs from the skunk in the outfield play in that a tag is (at least at some point) being attempted.  Clearly if no play was being attempted and R3 just wandered into left field (why!?) , that would be the skunk in the outfield play and no call would be needed (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Yeh, I assumed you were saying R3 was out once he passed 3rd?  Therefore, once R3 was out R2 is not. You can't be called out for passing a retired runner. Others are saying two out here. If there was no R2, could R3 retreat back toward to second to avoid a tag? 

There's no debate it's two outs in OBR. The case play in 5.09 is this exact play. Had there been no R2 and r3 runs back to 3b and 3 more feet towards LF while ring chased down by a fielder attempting a tag he's out. 

Theoretically in the OP, neither runner needs to be tagged. A fielder just needs to chase r3 for 3 feet past the bag towards LF. R2 is out the instant R3 retreats past the  3B bag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT...

If R3 had STOPPED at the bag and F2 tags both R2 and R3 only R2 would be out.

Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If U3 had made the proper call at the right time the fielder probably would have continued chasing R3 without stopping to tag R2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, conbo61 said:

BUT...

If R3 had STOPPED at the bag and F2 tags both R2 and R3 only R2 would be out.

Correct?

At the bag, no R3, out,  on the bag, yes R2 out, as both cannot occupy the base . I think..... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, conbo61 said:

BUT...

If R3 had STOPPED at the bag and F2 tags both R2 and R3 only R2 would be out.

Correct?

Yes. This is a straightforward case of the trailing runner being out when two runners occupy the same base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×