fungobat

Thank you for entertaining the hypothetical situation. I personally think neither 7.08(i) (because the runners purpose would be to avoid an out, not to make a travesty of the game) nor 7.10 ( B) (because the runner hasn't missed a base) would apply. My call would stand on the premise that if R3 passes R2 while running the bases in reverse order, 7.08(i) applies on the "attempting to confuse the defense" concept rather than making a travesty of the game. He knows he can't pass a trailing runner while running the bases in reverse order. Major League ballplayers know you can't switch places with another runner during play, so he would have to be attempting to confuse the defense. Even if he didn't know this, R3's confusion would likely cause confusion to the defense, which would be enough for me. As for the comment to 7.10(B), you have me there. How about the comment to 7.01? "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." R3 was at 3B for several pitches so he cannot legally return to 2B. Thoughts?

I realize he DIDN'T do that. Why wouldn't a runner retreat to second base in that scenario? What rules would we invoke if he does? If you (like the the umpires on the field) rule that 7.08(h) doesn't apply in this situation, then what rule prevents him from going to second base? What I'm saying is that if we can't come up with anything that prevents that absurdity, I think we misinterpreted 7.08(h). Because clearly SOMETHING should prevent R3 from passing R2 and arriving at second base safely. I happened to be in attendance at the game and, like johnnyg08, I was interested in seeing today's discussion. I had a great view from my seat in the 8th row along the 2B-3B line extended (Position D). My first thought after the play occurred was that Reyburn did an excellent job with the call. His timing was good as he mentally processed, then physically signalled his call for what was clearly an unusual situation. He didn't assume that R3 would just stop at 3B. He watched the entire play and made the correct call. Reyburn appeared to initiate the umpire conference after F5 Moustakas asked him a question about the play. I thought it was handled well. As for what would prevent R3 from running back to 2B, I think 7.08(i) and the comment to 7.10(B) are the tools we would use in that scenario. Great thread, guys.

About 4 hours left and it's only up to $415. http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290728463935

Not sure I see it as giving KC a distinct advantage, although they need all the help they can get. F1 could have easily gone to 2B with the throw, especially if he thought it was ruled a catch. Thinking he has caught the ball with no one out, why wouldn't he try to double off the lead runner? If he didn't think it was ruled a catch, at least he had a shot a the 1-6-3 DP. Looks like he knew it was a no catch, saw R2 and R1 were off and running, and thought his only play was on the BR at 1B. If he throws to 2B initially, Matheny has a better case in that situation.

Right you are, sir. Working the knee, it is. Unknown re: other catch/no catch calls. Will look into it. I saw Danley take one in the cup last week while on the knee and the article related to the play says he was unavailable for comment after the game as he was receiving treatment for dehydration. Maybe the knee is hard on you in more ways than one? St. Louis heat is no joke, though.

Triple play overturned in St. Louis. Did being in scissors keep Danley from having a good look at the catch/no catch? http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=22332677

Were you at that game? This exact thing happened to me 2-3 seasons ago; LL post-season tournament, Majors (12U) game. I'm PU; game is tied in the bottom of the 6th; R1 & R3 - 2 outs. My partner has warned F3's & F5's on both teams several times to keep both feet in fair territory while holding the runners (I know! I don't pick that scab unless I absolutely have to) As F1 throws, I hear 'Time! That's a balk! You - score." I waited at the plate for a moment to see if either manager was going to say anything, but . . . . . nothing. So - we left the field. When I explained to my partner that there's no such call in LL (didn't bother to address calling 'Time' first) he said, "Well, I had warned them, so I don't feel bad about it." And, he didn't, either. I saw it happen in a 12U Major game last month in the Kansas City area. Head coach called the issue to the BU's attention when it happened earlier in the game, but apparently convinced him to save the "call" for later when his team needed it most. Total horse----. "Don't do it," was the appropriate way to address the situation. If coaches continue to complain about it, and the defense continues to do it while completely disregarding warnings, then, at MOST, your partner may have had an ejection situation for the offender(s). Never seen it get that far, though.

OBR - not a balk. Reference: 8.01(e) - If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher's plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder... Infielders cannot balk, although I've seen coaches demand a "fielder's balk" when F3 or F5 straddle the bag while holding a runner and F1 makes his delivery. Actually saw an umpire call a "fielder's balk" on F5, awarding R3 home as the deciding run in a 12U tournament game. Not good.

You got it!!!! Sorry to belabor the point, gents, but I'm confused. If F3 has his foot on the base while possessing the ball and BR has never touched 1B, why not signal BR out initially? Seems as though the out mechanic is in order, regardless of whether or not BR's last step (missing 1B) beat the throw. I've been known to misread a post from time to time. Thanks.