2 Runners on a Base

[Mudder]

Usually when a play ends where 2 runners end up on a base, the defense will usually tag both runners, and the ump will decide which one is out based on the situation (force play, etc.) 

 

But what if the defence does not challenge the two runners on one base?  They always do but I've heard of cases where, depending on whats happening in the game at the moment, the defense may not try to tag either runner.

 

Can F1 legally toe the rubber and pitch to the next batter when 2 runners are on a base?  If so, on an ensuing walk or hit by the next batter as the umpire you know in your mind which of the two runners legally occupies the base which holds the 2 runners, so you can rule accordingly.

 

 

[UmpJM]

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

[kristoffae]

^^^^This here^^^^^

 

Thread complete

[Dragon29]

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

UmpJM,

 

I'm not arguing, and I may be admitting some ignorance here (better here than on the field) but . . . rule cite please?

[Rich Ives]

 

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

UmpJM,

 

I'm not arguing, and I may be admitting some ignorance here (better here than on the field) but . . . rule cite please?

 

 

 

Why on Earth do you need a rule cite?

[UmpJM]

Dragon,

 

I don't believe there is any specific rule that says "A new pitch/play cannot begin with two runners on the same base."

 

But it is true, nonetheless.

 

JM

[noumpere]

 

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

UmpJM,

 

I'm not arguing, and I may be admitting some ignorance here (better here than on the field) but . . . rule cite please?

 

Is there an "unlike" button?

[Mudder]

Guys, I know this is a ridiculous question I've posed, but what about a situation where in the last at bat in a tie game, bases loaded with the winning run on 3B ( # of outs?) and on the pitch R1 heads for 2B trying to bait a throw to get R3 home.  The defense does not challenge the 2 runners standing on 2B fearing R3 will come home for the win. So they decide to just continue to pitch to the batter.

 

In this sitch as PU, would you just not take you place behind the catcher until the "play" is finished, ie. the defense deals with the 2 runners on 2B?

[Rich Ives]

Guys, I know this is a ridiculous question I've posed, but what about a situation where in the last at bat in a tie game, bases loaded with the winning run on 3B ( # of outs?) and on the pitch R1 heads for 2B trying to bait a throw to get R3 home.  The defense does not challenge the 2 runners standing on 2B fearing R3 will come home for the win. So they decide to just continue to pitch to the batter.

 

In this sitch as PU, would you just not take you place behind the catcher until the "play" is finished, ie. the defense deals with the 2 runners on 2B?

 

Exactly

[noumpere]

Guys, I know this is a ridiculous question I've posed, but what about a situation where in the last at bat in a tie game, bases loaded with the winning run on 3B ( # of outs?) and on the pitch R1 heads for 2B trying to bait a throw to get R3 home.  The defense does not challenge the 2 runners standing on 2B fearing R3 will come home for the win. So they decide to just continue to pitch to the batter.

 

In this sitch as PU, would you just not take you place behind the catcher until the "play" is finished, ie. the defense deals with the 2 runners on 2B?

Let's take this to the logical conclusion.

 

9 batters in a row triple, but no one goes past third base.  So you have 9 runners on third.  Who bats?

 

What if its a FED game and the first two were F1 and F2 who had courtesy runners?  Can F1 bat even if his courtesy runner is on base?  Could we end up with 11 on a base?  How would the umpire keep track of passing?

[Aging_Arbiter]

If you need to draw a logical conclusion, "A runner legally aquires a base when....."  The book doesn't say "Several runners......

 

While something may not tell you WHAT IT SAYS........it may tell you WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY.

[sdix00]

Since we are going down this road.   

 

Addressing the situation where two runners (R1, R2) are on 2B  and R3 is on 3B intentionally.  

 

While JM and Rich would not resume the game until the situation at 2B is resolved, what if R1 on 2B simply took one step off to the 1B side of 2B?   Now he has an 89-foot lead.   

 

Can we play now?  If so, why does one step make all the difference?

[KLAH316]

This thread is getting very philisophical......

 

"If a tree fall in the woods and nobody is there to see it, will it still kill the squirrel it lands on??" 

[sdix00]

This thread is getting very philisophical......

 

"If a tree fall in the woods and nobody is there to see it, will it still kill the squirrel it lands on??" 

 

 

I agree, but I am sure you know that many of us umpire for youth leagues where things like this are not unheard of. 

[noumpere]

Since we are going down this road.   

 

Addressing the situation where two runners (R1, R2) are on 2B  and R3 is on 3B intentionally.  

 

While JM and Rich would not resume the game until the situation at 2B is resolved, what if R1 on 2B simply took one step off to the 1B side of 2B?   Now he has an 89-foot lead.   

 

Can we play now?  If so, why does one step make all the difference?

In any game where they are playing with 90 foot bases then the defense is easily going to get an out in this situation without anyone advancing.  Its frankly just not going to happen.

[sdix00]

 

Since we are going down this road.   

 

Addressing the situation where two runners (R1, R2) are on 2B  and R3 is on 3B intentionally.  

 

While JM and Rich would not resume the game until the situation at 2B is resolved, what if R1 on 2B simply took one step off to the 1B side of 2B?   Now he has an 89-foot lead.   

 

Can we play now?  If so, why does one step make all the difference?

In any game where they are playing with 90 foot bases then the defense is easily going to get an out in this situation without anyone advancing.  Its frankly just not going to happen.

 

 

 

Good point.  

 

Let me rephrase.  59 or 69 foot lead. 

[Dragon29]

 

 

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

UmpJM,

 

I'm not arguing, and I may be admitting some ignorance here (better here than on the field) but . . . rule cite please?

 

 

 

Why on Earth do you need a rule cite?

 

 

Wow!  OK - First, guys - thanks a lot.  I ask an honest question and get flamed?  What board am I on?

 

Why do I need a rule cite?  I don't need a rule cite; I was curious.  But, how many times have you heard (or had to say) that if the rulebook doesn't specifically prohibit something, then it's allowed?

 

I haven't fine-tooth-combed my rulebook for this, but I don't recall anything that specifically says they can't be there at the same time.  There are lots of rules about who has the right to the base and who's out if tagged, etc... but nothing that I recall that says they can't do it. 

 

So, I asked.

 

Sue me.

[Rich Ives]

There's a play on because an out is possible.  If they were all standing on their own base there wouldn't be an out possible.

[SoCal Lurker]

Mudder,

 

If two runners are standing on the same base, the play has not ended and you don't get behind the plate to call another pitch until only one runner is on any given base and action has relaxed.

 

JM

 

So . . . if (and of course it would never happen to anyone here . . . ) you somehow don't notice that there are two runners at first and call "time," I presume since the lead runner can't acquire 3d during the dead ball, that the trail runner would haver to return to 1st before the ball was put back into play, right?

[carolinablue]

How about the first part of 7.03(a). 

 

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 7.03(b) applies.

[Dragon29]

carolinablue - thanks, and 'Doh!'

 

Sometimes, I get so caught up in the minutae I don't see the big picture.

 

I'm sure that never happens to Rich or noumpere - ever!

[carolinablue]

No, your fine, some of this stuff is weird sometimes.LOL

[noumpere]

carolinablue - thanks, and 'Doh!'

 

Sometimes, I get so caught up in the minutae I don't see the big picture.

 

I'm sure that never happens to Rich or noumpere - ever!

Happens to me all the time and I appreciate it when someone slaps the s*** out of me when it does happen.

[Rich Ives]

carolinablue - thanks, and 'Doh!'

 

Sometimes, I get so caught up in the minutae I don't see the big picture.

 

I'm sure that never happens to Rich or noumpere - ever!

 

There's more than one picture? 

[mstaylor]

I have never seen this happen but if by some strange chance it did I would stand of to the side to see of anybody is going to try a play. If not I would call time, change balls or dust the plate. At that point they have to return, and there is a rule for that

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2