Is the runner out?

[Mr Umpire]

Bases loaded, no outs. F2 fails to catch a pitch, and it goes to the backstop. R3 and R2 don't try to advance, but R1 takes off for second. As F2 retrieves the ball, R2 goes all the way back to the bag. R1 also goes all the way to second, and doesn't slide; rather, he tries to go in standing up, but his momentum carries his past the bag a couple of steps. He finally stops, and starts running back to first. He doesn't get very far as my BU partner rings him up for passing another runner.

So, did R1 really pass R2? R1 never made a move towards third base; he simply overran second, then turned back around and headed back. R2, meanwhile, stayed in contact with the third-base side of the second base bag.

Whatcha got?

This comes from another forum. I support the fact that the BU should not have called the runner out.

I know of the rule which says passing a preceding runner is an out. I am looking for if there is something which supports this being an out or not. Aside from individual interpretation, is there anything official to support this being an out or not.

My reasoning is that passing a base does not equate to passing a runner in relation to the base line between bases. BR does it all the time with an R1 and some have rationalized that 1B is different so this is OK not to call an out. Also, the same ones rationalize that it would have not been an out if R2 was simply not touching 2B while R1 was beyond it.

I don't buy any of that rationale. None of that makes sense so I am asking for any interpretation which proves me right or wrong. If there isn't any, then I just want to see what others would call on it.

[JaxRolo]

I don't believe the runner was passed, so no out.

Just my opinion.

[Umpire in Chief]

Mr. Umpire,

I'm not sure I understand your post. Because I don't understand what argument can be made not to call the runner out. But I may just be confused.

7.08(h) gives an out for passing a preceding runner.

IMO how he passes the runner doesn't matter. The OP stated R2 was on the 3rd base side of the bag if R1 runs/falls/slides beyond the base then in essence he's passed the preceding runner.

[carolinablue]

If R2 is on the 3B side of the bag and R1 overruns 2B in a direction straight towards left field than I could see how one could argue that R1 never physically passed R2. What is the spirit of this rule ? Is it to avoid confusion on the basepaths ? If so than I would say he did not pass so he can return to 1B safely. I may be way off here.

[BrianC14]

Guys, it doesn't matter what "side" of the bag R2 is on. The fact is, he's occupying that base.

If a following runner passes the base that's occupied, he's out.

[Mr Umpire]

Interesting. Another board which is about 50/50 on the call.

UIC, to me, passing a base does not equate to passing a runner in relation to the base path(the imaginary line between bases). R1 went out towards LF. All examples/instances of this rule which I have found has the trail runner making an attempt to the advance base before the pass was made.

Even the JEA uses examples like that. It may be an oversight but all examples imply the trail runner has to attempt to advance before a pass can be completed.

This is just a gray area to me b/c of that implication. I guess 50% will call an out and 50% will not. I will change if a case play/official interpretation says this type of play is an out. But, there aren't any yet that I have been made aware of.

For me, the intent of the rule is to prevent confusion for appeal purposes and the offense from gaining an advantage of getting a faster trail runner to score before the 3rd out occurs. In the OP, neither occurred so I don't see an out for it.

This is why I love baseball. The "gray" area makes it fun to discuss.

[BrianC14]

Interesting. Another board which is about 50/50 on the call.

UIC, to me, passing a base does not equate to passing a runner in relation to the base path(the imaginary line between bases). R1 went out towards LF. All examples/instances of this rule which I have found has the trail runner making an attempt to the advance base before the pass was made.

Even the JEA uses examples like that. It may be an oversight but all examples imply the trail runner has to attempt to advance before a pass can be completed.

This is just a gray area to me b/c of that implication. I guess 50% will call an out and 50% will not. I will change if a case play/official interpretation says this type of play is an out. But, there aren't any yet that I have been made aware of.

For me, the intent of the rule is to prevent confusion for appeal purposes and the offense from gaining an advantage of getting a faster trail runner to score before the 3rd out occurs. In the OP, neither occurred so I don't see an out for it.

This is why I love baseball. The "gray" area makes it fun to discuss.

When it comes to a "gray" area like this, it's often best to punish stupidity. Call R1 out.

Edited to add: I don't see this as a gray area. If R2 is on the bag, and R1 runs beyond the base, then he's out.

As I posted on the ABUA forum, "Sometimes, you just have to umpire."

Edited March 15, 2010 by BrianC14

[PeteBooth]

Mr. Umpire,

I'm not sure I understand your post. Because I don't understand what argument can be made not to call the runner out. But I may just be confused.

7.08(h) gives an out for passing a preceding runner.

IMO how he passes the runner doesn't matter. The OP stated R2 was on the 3rd base side of the bag if R1 runs/falls/slides beyond the base then in essence he's passed the preceding runner

.

Warren, Mr. Umpire is now notorious for copying and pasting threads from different Forums.

Mr Umpire copied this OP from eteamz where it started, posted it on Umpire.org and now here.

I realize things are slow but this is becoming commonplace for Mr. Umpire. You are correct, this is a No brainer which both Brian and I pointed out to Mr. Umpire on the other Forum

IMO, the reason he brings this OP "over here" is to try and get some viewers to support his interp which simply over-complicates the issue and IMO does more harm then good for new or first year umpires.

FWIW: You can go to www.umpire.org to get Mr. Umpires views or take on this issue. It's under the rules section

Pete Booth

[carolinablue]

I read the entire thread on umpire.org and agree after reading that it is an out. I do not agree that it is a no brainer however. Or maybe I just don't have a brain.

[blp79]

Warren, Mr. Umpire is now notorious for copying and pasting threads from different Forums.

Mr Umpire copied this OP from eteamz where it started, posted it on Umpire.org and now here.

I realize things are slow but this is becoming commonplace for Mr. Umpire. You are correct, this is a No brainer which both Brian and I pointed out to Mr. Umpire on the other Forum

IMO, the reason he brings this OP "over here" is to try and get some viewers to support his interp which simply over-complicates the issue and IMO does more harm then good for new or first year umpires.

FWIW: You can go to www.umpire.org to get Mr. Umpires views or take on this issue. It's under the rules section

Pete Booth

:ranton:Honestly what does it matter where the post came from originally?All Mr. Umpire is trying to do is get this forums input on the post,I have never seen this post until today and thought it was an interesting post,I do not see how he is trying to confuse anyone or get someone to support his views,all i see is he is bringing it here for discussion on this forum.:rantoff:Now for my question would the ruling be the same In FED as in OBR

[Mr Umpire]

Thanks, blp.

And, it is commonplace for Pete to attempt to bully others to believe what he wants as well. Not really, but I thought I would put it out there since he doesn't understand why I do it. Or, wants to make me sound like something I am not. Once said/written, it can't be taken back.

Pete, not all will post or know about the other forums. So, you want others to be deprived if they don't know about all of the other ones you are on. Interesting thought. Keep them in the dark and make them follow you around on any forum you wish to actually post on that day. Very helpful.

Now, my point is to get other point of views. It isn't to cohearse anyone. I don't commonly use all caps, larger font, bolding words, and underlining words like some posters to make my point sound right. Maybe, someone will come up with a better reason of why this is possible. Or, someone who was not on another forum will have a case play illustrating this exact play which no one else has. It is always possible.

And, there are those who read the other forums but won't post b/c of what the forum allows. Umpire.org is a prime example of that. Many won't post to avoid the kind of tactics others do such as those participating in that thread on there now. :wow:

[Mr Umpire]

I don't find Pete to be one to bully others; merely exceptionally confident that his thoughts are correct.

And yeah umpire.org has a few characters on there who feel they are God's gift to umpiring; same with officiating.com. I suppose it is their own way of feeling impressive about themselves - to me its like the hockey player who won't answer the bell if you ask him to go, but as soon as a linesman steps in, he is all talk. They're hiding behind a screename and keyboard most of the time, so just laugh it off.

On the other hand, if you don't like it, don't post there - no one is forced to or not to. That's not directed specifically at you either; I know your thoughts mirror the thoughts of others.

Just making an incorrect assumption. He seems to have no problem about making one of me and actually believing it apparently. I disclaimed mine after I made it.

I have no problem taking heat for my posts. It is no worse than what may be dealt with on the field. Many make excuses for doing it as a teaching tool for the field. I find that a BS excuse to be a jerk.

And, that is a main reason I post things on multiple sites if I deem it necessary. There are different posters on different sites. Some won't post their thoughts or experiences on the other site. Different levels of experience which is a reason why I posted it on umpire.org as well. I don't know eteamz posters' experience.

[PeteBooth]

Thanks, blp.

And, it is commonplace for Pete to attempt to bully others to believe what he wants as well. Not really, but I thought I would put it out there since he doesn't understand why I do it. Or, wants to make me sound like something I am not. Once said/written, it can't be taken back.

No ones bullying anybody but you took a thread that FIRST started at eteamz, then posted in on umpire.org and now here. Also, this is not the first time you took a thread from another Forum.

If you have YOUR OWN ideas - great but many (not just me) post on other Forums and frankly your OP has been "beaten to death" so IMO no need to take a thread and post it EVERYWHERE.

Manny at eteamz started the thread and there were MANY responses at that Forum. The same OP was then posted at umpire.org and again many many responses.

If you think that is bullying then so be it. IMO, you received a plethora of responses at umpire.org.

How many more responses do you want?

I know the REAL answer and YES it's my fault. When you plagarize another OP someday I should simply ignore. My bad.

Pete Booth

[mstaylor]

Before this turns into something more than it is do me a favour. If you feel a poster is out of line , send a PM and discuss it ooffboard. If you disagree with something posted then reply on the board, if it isn't about the post take it to PMs. This isn't a big deal here but this board prides itself on nonconfrontation and we would like to keep it that way.

[Mr Umpire]

An interesting point was made about this.

In the playoffs, Yankees vs. Angels, Posada and Cano ended up on 3B. Posada went behind 3B and took his foot off. From McClelland's perspective, he thought Cano was touching the base. He called Posada out on the tag and not Cano for passing Posada since Posada did not go back towards 2B.

By the arguments that touching a base and passing it is beyond thus putting the runner beyond a preceding runner who is in contact with the base, wouldn't the same apply if the preceding runner did the same? Posada was called out for the tag, not Cano for passing a preceding runner.

Did McClelland mess that up as well? Was there another reason for not calling Cano out other than McClelland messed up?

[Mr Umpire]

Before this turns into something more than it is do me a favour. If you feel a poster is out of line , send a PM and discuss it ooffboard. If you disagree with something posted then reply on the board, if it isn't about the post take it to PMs. This isn't a big deal here but this board prides itself on nonconfrontation and we would like to keep it that way.

Agreed. I quit. Another thread hijacked.

[Mr Umpire]

I got this response from the Wendelstedt site. Take it FWIW.

We see that this is getting deep into discussion, so please let us explain from our perspective. It is only passing when the runners physically pass one another while running around the bases. It seems that in your situation, R1 went to the centerfield side of second base, and though he passed R2, it was not on the third base side. Therefore, the runner would not be called out for passing. Let me give you an example of a play that took place with one of our instructors (and now MLB umpire supervisor) Charlie Reliford.

R2, R3. The ball gets by the catcher and R3 initially thinks he can score, however, get caught up in a rundown. He makes it safely back to third base only to find R2 had advanced there as well, and R3 is tagged while in contact with the base. The third base umpire calls him safe (and rightfully so). Immediately after the tag, R3 continues a few feet down the left field line. At this point R3 has not passed R2 going towards second, and R2 has not passed R3 towards home, so no one is out.

The defense, believing he was out, starts to move back to their positions, with the catcher still holding the ball and walking towards home plate. Charlie recognized a few things here: 1) The defense believed R3 was out, 2) No runners were out for passing, and 3) R3 knew he was not out.

This illiminates the possiblilty of calling him out for abandoning his effort. R3 then touched 3rd base while R2 stood on it, and began non-shalantly walking towards the plate. Charlie could see that he was about to score a run without anyone knowing what was going on except the umpires and R3. A few feet from home plate, and not with any real urgency, the catcher tagged R3 with the ball. Charlie properly called him out.

I know that this brings in a few other things, however, it is an example where runners can pass each other, but not be called out for passing.

Same thing happens all the time at first base. R1 goes back to tag up on a fly ball, and the BR runs through the base. Even though they've passed one another, they have not done so while running around the bases.

It should be commonplace to get the REAL correct answer. And, I agree, this is not a gray area. R1 is not out b/c passing a base does not equate to passing a runner.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Mr Umpire

[HokieUmp]

If you have YOUR OWN ideas - great but many (not just me) post on other Forums and frankly your OP has been "beaten to death" so IMO no need to take a thread and post it EVERYWHERE.

I don't want to get in the middle of a crap-storm, but I will say that this is the only board I read on a regular basis. I also go to officiating.com, but I stopped at ABUA (the scrolling issue annoyed the #$%@! out of me). Point being: not all of us see these things over and over, so we're not as peeved by it.

If you see post you've seen elsewhere, why not just ignore it? That's what I do on all the equipment threads (unless I'm actively shopping for something, my eyes just glaze over on all that talk). Just a thought.

[Mr Umpire]

As stated before, "Sometimes, you just have to umpire." IOW, don't apply rules just as they are written. Apply them as the umpire sees fit and how it fits to the situation. In essence, the intent of the rule. And, 7.08(h) does not apply to this situation since R1 did not completely pass R2 in relation to the imaginary line from 2B to 3B. So, no out for the OP.

But, to be fair, this is 2B and there are no lines to go by. So, if the BU judges R1 to go towards 3B and in the BU's judgment the move was enough to put R1's entire body closer to 3B, then an out can be given. But, if a protest is filed, the umpire better say something like that. B/c if not, the protest should be upheld.

But, don't make it up. If the BU can't tell that R1 is completely beyond R2, then don't call an out.

[mstaylor]

For some reason I never really read the OP or what the thread was about. If I had I would have explasined exactly what Harry explained. If the runner goes by the bag but doesn't actually go closer to the next bag than the runner ahead of him he hasn't passed the runner.

This was discussed a few years ago and the concensus of the big dogs around the boards, with the backing of several professional experts, to rule this way. I believe if you ask Rick Roder or Jim Evans you would get the same answer.

[noumpere]

I got this response from the Wendelstedt site. Take it FWIW.

It should be commonplace to get the REAL correct answer. And, I agree, this is not a gray area. R1 is not out b/c passing a base does not equate to passing a runner.

That's consistent with a very similar quiz question on the NCAA site (in quiz 2).