Video: Abandonment?

[johnnyg08]

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23233743&c_id=mlb

[dumbdumb]

Isn't the succeeding runner #8 out for passing (whole body is past) a preceding runner #12, when preceding runner #12, goes completely to the right of the runner on third and on past the bag down left field line, and then then preceding runner #12 is out for abandoning? In other words a double play since ball remains alive and #12 has reached the point of abandoning (umpire judgement on abandoning).

Or are they both considered occupying the base at the same time when he, #12, goes straight down the line past the bag, in which case if you tag the succeeding runner with both on the base (although not literally touching at the same time with the body), the succeeding runner #8 is out, and then when preceding runner "12 abandons he is out for abandonment when, in the umpires judgment he has reached that abandonment judgment point.

Get those umpire school rules guys out for this one. Give OBR ruling first and then give other organizations, NCAA, NF, LL.

This could easily happen at all levels and we would like to get it correct and be able to explain it in laymen's terms. Then we will deal with the repercussions of a possible ejection from either side or maybe both sides, knowing we got the play and interpretation correct in each rule set.

[johnnyg08]

When I saw this while watching last night's game...I was giddy with the fact that this video will start a good thread.

[Jocko]

Isn't the succeeding runner #8 out for passing (whole body is past) a preceding runner #12, when preceding runner #12, goes completely to the right of the runner on third and on past the bag down left field line, and then then preceding runner #12 is out for abandoning? In other words a double play since ball remains alive and #12 has reached the point of abandoning (umpire judgement on abandoning).

Or are they both considered occupying the base at the same time when he, #12, goes straight down the line past the bag, in which case if you tag the succeeding runner with both on the base (although not literally touching at the same time with the body), the succeeding runner #8 is out, and then when preceding runner "12 abandons he is out for abandonment when, in the umpires judgment he has reached that abandonment judgment point.

Get those umpire school rules guys out for this one. Give OBR ruling first and then give other organizations, NCAA, NF, LL.

This could easily happen at all levels and we would like to get it correct and be able to explain it in laymen's terms. Then we will deal with the repercussions of a possible ejection from either side or maybe both sides, knowing we got the play and interpretation correct in each rule set.

It all depends on if R2 is forced. I don't think he was because R3 doesn't appear forced unless F2 forgot the situation (which I highly doubt). The wording of the rule may be critical.

"Any runner is out whe HE passes a preceding runner before such runner is out."

In the video, R2 didn't pass R3. He legally acquired 3b. While he wasn't entitled to it, he was there legally. Had F2 tagged R2 while they were both in contact, R2 would indeed be out. F2 didn't tag anyone, so until he does you have a big fat nothing. Under OBR 7.08(a) any runner who after reaching 1b leaves the baseline heading for the dugout or his position believing there is no further play may be called out for abandonment and the ball is live. Fed rule is almost identical.

[johnnyg08]

It seems like the umpire waited for him to turn to the dugout before calling him out for abandonment.

[Jocko]

It seems like the umpire waited for him to turn to the dugout before calling him out. Seems to me that he called him out for abandonment.

Can you tell I got my PBUC books from U-A?

I knew what to call, but I love having these to refer to and cite WHY we call it.

[basejester]

The wording of the rule may be critical.

"Any runner is out whe HE passes a preceding runner before such runner is out."

In the video, R2 didn't pass R3. He legally acquired 3b.

The implication of this interpretation is that R3 could pass up R2 and retreat safely to second base, which while I have to admit would be entertaining, doesn't feel right.

I think we have an out as soon as their positions relative to home swap.

[dumbdumb]

Isn't the succeeding runner #8 out for passing (whole body is past) a preceding runner #12, when preceding runner #12, goes completely to the right of the runner on third and on past the bag down left field line, and then then preceding runner #12 is out for abandoning? In other words a double play since ball remains alive and #12 has reached the point of abandoning (umpire judgement on abandoning).

Or are they both considered occupying the base at the same time when he, #12, goes straight down the line past the bag, in which case if you tag the succeeding runner with both on the base (although not literally touching at the same time with the body), the succeeding runner #8 is out, and then when preceding runner "12 abandons he is out for abandonment when, in the umpires judgment he has reached that abandonment judgment point.

Get those umpire school rules guys out for this one. Give OBR ruling first and then give other organizations, NCAA, NF, LL.

This could easily happen at all levels and we would like to get it correct and be able to explain it in laymen's terms. Then we will deal with the repercussions of a possible ejection from either side or maybe both sides, knowing we got the play and interpretation correct in each rule set.

It all depends on if R2 is forced. I don't think he was because R3 doesn't appear forced unless F2 forgot the situation (which I highly doubt). The wording of the rule may be critical.

"Any runner is out whe HE passes a preceding runner before such runner is out."

In the video, R2 didn't pass R3. He legally acquired 3b. While he wasn't entitled to it, he was there legally. Had F2 tagged R2 while they were both in contact, R2 would indeed be out. F2 didn't tag anyone, so until he does you have a big fat nothing. Under OBR 7.08(a) any runner who after reaching 1b leaves the baseline heading for the dugout or his position believing there is no further play may be called out for abandonment and the ball is live. Fed rule is almost identical.

I thought I saw (without going back) F2 tag #8 (R2). The tag occurred before the right arm went up for abandonment or when does the abandonment occur? If it is as soon as he steps (just one step) past the bag going down the left field line, then the tag was too late as #8 was then the legal occupant. Where is #12 considered to be when he goes behind the base and at exactly what point has he abandoned. Just seems if he abandoned the moment he stepped off the bag going down the line, the out call for abandonment should be made quicker so the safe call can be made quicker on #8, or the safe call can be made quickly on #8 and then the out call on #12.

So, it is better to keep running to left field if you are the slower runner so the umpire cannot call the preceding and possibly faster runner #8 out as he could with both runners standing on the base and tagging #8 first and then #12. And if the runner behind you is slower, do stand on the base and let them touch the slower runner for the out, and you the faster runner still stays alive with the possibility to score on a SF with your speed.

Just asking.

[Jocko]

R3 didn't pass R2 on the BASEPATH. Technically, they both occupied 3b momentarily, and he, knowing he was out, abandoned the bag and headed for the dugout. He was wrong, but his knowledge of the rules isn't in question. There is no implication of R3 passing R2 and go back to 2b. He was on 3b. He would be out and R2 would stay at 3b. They got it right.

[basejester]

Technically, they both occupied 3b momentarily, and he, knowing he was out, abandoned the bag and headed for the dugout. He was wrong, but his knowledge of the rules isn't in question. There is no implication of R3 passing R2 and go back to 2b. He was on 3b.

R3 going back to 2b is a hypothetical situation I raised. If that happened, what would you call and why?

If you don't call R2 out when R3 retreats past 3B (presumably because R3 is moving instead of R2), why couldn't R3 go back to 2b?

[noumpere]

Isn't the succeeding runner #8 out for passing (whole body is past) a preceding runner #12, when preceding runner #12, goes completely to the right of the runner on third and on past the bag down left field line,

No thats not passing.

[dumbdumb]

At what point (exactly) is #12 out for abandonment? What happens if the catcher goes after #12 and tags him 2 steps down the line and before tagging him #8 takes one step off the bag towards home. Just trying to get the timing down for this just like a time play. Also, if #8 is a faster runner, wasn't #12 smart to not stop on the base and therefor have the faster runner tagged #8 while both were on the base and #8 called out?

[noumpere]

At what point (exactly) is #12 out for abandonment? What happens if the catcher goes after #12 and tags him 2 steps down the line and before tagging him #8 takes one step off the bag towards home. Just trying to get the timing down for this just like a time play. Also, if #8 is a faster runner, wasn't #12 smart to not stop on the base and therefor have the faster runner tagged #8 while both were on the base and #8 called out?

1) At the exact point the umpire judges him to have abandoned.

2) Yes. Not the first runner to make that happen and sometimes the defense chooses to play on the faster runner to leave the slower runner on base.

[Rich Ives]

In this play it's R3's job to stay in the rundown until R2 gets to 3B - then give up. Nobody's headed back to 2B.

[basejester]

In this play it's R3's job to stay in the rundown until R2 gets to 3B - then give up. Nobody's headed back to 2B.

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.

[fungobat]

In this play it's R3's job to stay in the rundown until R2 gets to 3B - then give up. Nobody's headed back to 2B.

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.

[Lindsay]

Some things to think about: Which comes first, 7.08(a)(2) [abandonment], 7.08(i) [reverse order travesty], or 7.08(h) [passing a preceding runner before such runner is out]?

Which of the following is true in this situation, wherein ">" signifies "is in front of/has passed" and "<" signifies "is behind": R2<R3, R2=R3 or R2>R3? Hint: Two of the three occur, but not all three.

I won't comment further at this time, as we've posted a Case Play regarding this precise video.

[johnnyg08]

I do not think this is a reverse order travesty.

[Umpire in Chief]

Very interesting thread. After a lot of thought. The only thing I can justify is once he retreats past 3rd the only thing you can assume is he is abandoning.

Although I like dumbdumb's theory on getting a double play.

[basejester]

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.

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.

[UmpTTS43]

R3 out for running out of his base path to avoid a tag. I'm sure we will see clarification in the future.

[fungobat]

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.

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?

[johnnyg08]

Do we have a consensus on abandonment here?

Seems like that is the pattern.

[zm1283]

I posted on the UEFL site that passing might get R2 called out also, but the more I think about it, I wouldn't consider this a passing situation. I think they got it right. Call R3 out for abandonment, R2 is on third base now.

[UmpTTS43]

Do we have a consensus on abandonment here?

Seems like that is the pattern.

I believe out of his basepath to avoid the tag is more relevant than abandonment. Just running past the bag in and of itself does not mean abandonment IMO.