run down-rules involved??

[basejester]

There could certainly be a flaw in the language of the rule, but there shouldn't be any debate about how the game is played in practice.  He just kicked a judgement call.  Damn. 

[JaxRolo]

Link to your FB argument. 

 

Try this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/465162970169200/652893331396162/?comment_id=653067311378764&notif_t=like

 

or this

 

https://www.facebook.com/dougmcclure61?fref=ts

[KLAH316]

Requested to join group

[JaxRolo]

Thet keep bringing up 7.8. b but don't want to read 7.8.c

[Texas Manny]

I have begun the process of contacting MLB offices to get clarification on the call, including contacting Jerry Davis, whom is Dan Issagona's crew chief. As soon as I get responses, I will post up.

[Texas Manny]

Update: Contact has been made to ask Gerry Davis. When response comes in, you will all know.

[JaxRolo]

Now they are saying that 7.8.c says that if tagged off HIS base he is out. and 3rd is not HIS base. Its R3's base

[Texas Manny]

I am not certain why this has stirred up a hornets nest.

 

R1 was entitled and occupied 1st base at TOP: 7.01

R3 was entitled and occupied 3rd base at TOP: 7.01

 

Ball was hit

 

R1 forced to 2nd base, reaches, earns entitlement and occupancy: 7.01

R3, unforced, decides to go home, retains entitlement and occupancy, until put out, or in this case, scores: 7.01 (comment, TOP); 7.08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy: A runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base)

 

Fielders Choice to F2.

F2 chases R3 back towards 3rd base.

R1 reaching 2nd safely, seeing no one is paying attention, advances to 3rd base. He cannot occupy the base legally, 7:08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy)(7.03).

R1 is standing on third base.

 

F2 throws to F5, who attempts to tag R3. Misses. Dan Issagona signals "SAFE!" His first call.

R3 avoids the tag, touches 3rd base, then loses balance and falls off 3rd base.

While R3 is falling off 3rd base, F5 tags R2 standing on third base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His second call. 7.03

F5 then takes R3 who fell off base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His third call. 7.08C

 

That's what I contend is the play's sequence.

 

R1 could only become the legal entitled player and occupier of third base if R3 is put out first, which frees the entitlement and occupancy and allows him to be "safe" because he's on the bag.

 

 

I'm not arguing this here. This is the argument I am presenting to the MLB contacts and will await the response.

[ohlradio]

Now they are saying that 7.8.c says that if tagged off HIS base he is out. and 3rd is not HIS base. Its R3's base

 

Then ask them if on a R1/R2 double steal, if the catcher throws to second base, and R1 reaches second base before the tag, but R2 has not reached third base yet, R1 is ruled out even if he's on the base?

 

Or R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1? The answer to those questions is obvious, hence it's the same logic on this play.

 

As mentioned above, the ONLY argument I've seen with any potential validity is that when Reyes re-touched 3rd base again, it gave him possession of the base - whether he continued to touch or not. Kind of like to avoid the silly play where if Reyes touches the base, but then un-touches it every time they try to tag Lawrie you'd be there all day. I still think in this situation Iassogna thought Reyes was touching the base when Lawrie was tagged, bringing into play 2 runners on same base.

[Texas Manny]

Ohlradio,

 

On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 received the catcher's attention and gets to the bag safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out!

 

Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged, he is out.

 

 

Second scenario you gave:

 

R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1?

 

Same scenario as above. R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 gets to 2nd safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out! Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which he would be when he is tagged. Because F3 stepped on 1st base, that relieved the force on everyone.

 

The entitlement and occupancy shifts as the play develops. It will either advance, or revert, fluid, depending on the situation. But R1 would not be out if he reached 2nd safely, and R2 reached 3rd safely, on the premise of 7.03, on the double steal or the tag play. 7.03 only applies if R2 has to go back to his original base and they are both there.

[JaxRolo]

I am not certain why this has stirred up a hornets nest.

 

R1 was entitled and occupied 1st base at TOP: 7.01

R3 was entitled and occupied 3rd base at TOP: 7.01

 

Ball was hit

 

R1 forced to 2nd base, reaches, earns entitlement and occupancy: 7.01

R3, unforced, decides to go home, retains entitlement and occupancy, until put out, or in this case, scores: 7.01 (comment, TOP); 7.08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy: A runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base)

 

Fielders Choice to F2.

F2 chases R3 back towards 3rd base.

R1 reaching 2nd safely, seeing no one is paying attention, advances to 3rd base. He cannot occupy the base legally, 7:08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy)(7.03).

R1 is standing on third base.

 

F2 throws to F5, who attempts to tag R3. Misses. Dan Issagona signals "SAFE!" His first call.

R3 avoids the tag, touches 3rd base, then loses balance and falls off 3rd base.

While R3 is falling off 3rd base, F5 tags R2 standing on third base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His second call. 7.03

F5 then takes R3 who fell off base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His third call. 7.08C

 

That's what I contend is the play's sequence.

 

R1 could only become the legal entitled player and occupier of third base if R3 is put out first, which frees the entitlement and occupancy and allows him to be "safe" because he's on the bag.

 

 

I'm not arguing this here. This is the argument I am presenting to the MLB contacts and will await the response.

 

You should not even mention this!

[Texas Manny]

 

I am not certain why this has stirred up a hornets nest.

 

R1 was entitled and occupied 1st base at TOP: 7.01

R3 was entitled and occupied 3rd base at TOP: 7.01

 

Ball was hit

 

R1 forced to 2nd base, reaches, earns entitlement and occupancy: 7.01

R3, unforced, decides to go home, retains entitlement and occupancy, until put out, or in this case, scores: 7.01 (comment, TOP); 7.08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy: A runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base)

 

Fielders Choice to F2.

F2 chases R3 back towards 3rd base.

R1 reaching 2nd safely, seeing no one is paying attention, advances to 3rd base. He cannot occupy the base legally, 7:08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy)(7.03).

R1 is standing on third base.

 

F2 throws to F5, who attempts to tag R3. Misses. Dan Issagona signals "SAFE!" His first call.

R3 avoids the tag, touches 3rd base, then loses balance and falls off 3rd base.

While R3 is falling off 3rd base, F5 tags R2 standing on third base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His second call. 7.03

F5 then takes R3 who fell off base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His third call. 7.08C

 

That's what I contend is the play's sequence.

 

R1 could only become the legal entitled player and occupier of third base if R3 is put out first, which frees the entitlement and occupancy and allows him to be "safe" because he's on the bag.

 

 

I'm not arguing this here. This is the argument I am presenting to the MLB contacts and will await the response.

 

You should even mention this!

 

That entire statement is what was included in the emails I've sent. I have left nothing out.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

I am not certain why this has stirred up a hornets nest.

 

R1 was entitled and occupied 1st base at TOP: 7.01

R3 was entitled and occupied 3rd base at TOP: 7.01

 

Ball was hit

 

R1 forced to 2nd base, reaches, earns entitlement and occupancy: 7.01

R3, unforced, decides to go home, retains entitlement and occupancy, until put out, or in this case, scores: 7.01 (comment, TOP); 7.08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy: A runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base)

 

Fielders Choice to F2.

F2 chases R3 back towards 3rd base.

R1 reaching 2nd safely, seeing no one is paying attention, advances to 3rd base. He cannot occupy the base legally, 7:08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy)(7.03).

R1 is standing on third base.

 

F2 throws to F5, who attempts to tag R3. Misses. Dan Issagona signals "SAFE!" His first call.

R3 avoids the tag, touches 3rd base, then loses balance and falls off 3rd base.

While R3 is falling off 3rd base, F5 tags R2 standing on third base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His second call. 7.03

F5 then takes R3 who fell off base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His third call. 7.08C

 

That's what I contend is the play's sequence.

 

R1 could only become the legal entitled player and occupier of third base if R3 is put out first, which frees the entitlement and occupancy and allows him to be "safe" because he's on the bag.

 

 

I'm not arguing this here. This is the argument I am presenting to the MLB contacts and will await the response.

 

You should NOT even mention this!

 

That entire statement is what was included in the emails I've sent. I have left nothing out.

 

Meant to say not!

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

I am not certain why this has stirred up a hornets nest.

 

R1 was entitled and occupied 1st base at TOP: 7.01

R3 was entitled and occupied 3rd base at TOP: 7.01

 

Ball was hit

 

R1 forced to 2nd base, reaches, earns entitlement and occupancy: 7.01

R3, unforced, decides to go home, retains entitlement and occupancy, until put out, or in this case, scores: 7.01 (comment, TOP); 7.08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy: A runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base)

 

Fielders Choice to F2.

F2 chases R3 back towards 3rd base.

R1 reaching 2nd safely, seeing no one is paying attention, advances to 3rd base. He cannot occupy the base legally, 7:08(B)(Comment, definition of occupancy)(7.03).

R1 is standing on third base.

 

F2 throws to F5, who attempts to tag R3. Misses. Dan Issagona signals "SAFE!" His first call.

R3 avoids the tag, touches 3rd base, then loses balance and falls off 3rd base.

While R3 is falling off 3rd base, F5 tags R2 standing on third base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His second call. 7.03

F5 then takes R3 who fell off base. Dan Issagona signals "OUT!" His third call. 7.08C

 

That's what I contend is the play's sequence.

 

R1 could only become the legal entitled player and occupier of third base if R3 is put out first, which frees the entitlement and occupancy and allows him to be "safe" because he's on the bag.

 

 

I'm not arguing this here. This is the argument I am presenting to the MLB contacts and will await the response.

 

You should NOT even mention this!

 

That entire statement is what was included in the emails I've sent. I have left nothing out.

 

Meant to say not!

 

Why? It is accurate to what happened.

[JaxRolo]

 

Now they are saying that 7.8.c says that if tagged off HIS base he is out. and 3rd is not HIS base. Its R3's base

 

Then ask them if on a R1/R2 double steal, if the catcher throws to second base, and R1 reaches second base before the tag, but R2 has not reached third base yet, R1 is ruled out even if he's on the base?

 

 

I brought this up and they say that R1 would be out.

[grayhawk]

You have assumed all along that Iassogna saw R3 off the base when he called R1 out, thereby validating your argument. Others (myself included) believe that Iassogna incorrectly judged R3 to still be touching third when R1 was tagged. I hope Gerry Davis replies, but I'm skeptical that he will unless you know him personally. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Texas Manny]

You have assumed all along that Iassogna saw R3 off the base when he called R1 out, thereby validating your argument.

Others (myself included) believe that Iassogna incorrectly judged R3 to still be touching third when R1 was tagged.

I hope Gerry Davis replies, but I'm skeptical that he will unless you know him personally.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

You can tell in the video that Dan Iassogna saw R3 off the base when he called R1 out, but that's my interpretation of it, and may not be yours.

 

I believe that Mr. Davis will respond, as his contacts have told me he is usually very helpful and willing to offer assistance.

 

Again, I'm not going to argue this anymore. No one hear gives me any credibility or respect. All I have received is false accusations, snide remarks, and personal put downs, so I'm going to the individuals who dealt with it directly to explain the scenario. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, then we've all learned something by these exchanges.

 

To me, it's about getting the call and interpretations correct. Not who has the biggest willy.

[ohlradio]

Ohlradio,

 

On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 received the catcher's attention and gets to the bag safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out!

 

Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged, he is out.

 

 

Second scenario you gave:

 

R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1?

 

Same scenario as above. R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 gets to 2nd safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out! Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged. Because F3 stepped on 1st base, that relieved the force on everyone.

 

The entitlement and occupancy shifts as the play develops. It will either advance, or revert, fluid, depending on the situation. But R1 would not be out if he reached 2nd safely, and R2 reached 3rd safely, on the premise of 7.03, on the double steal or the tag play. 7.03 only applies if R2 has to go back to his original base and they are both there.

 

We've already ironed out all the issues if the preceding runner returned to the base safely, we're into the 2 runners on the base at the same time situation. But in my scenario and the MLB one we never had that.

[ohlradio]

 

 

Now they are saying that 7.8.c says that if tagged off HIS base he is out. and 3rd is not HIS base. Its R3's base

 

Then ask them if on a R1/R2 double steal, if the catcher throws to second base, and R1 reaches second base before the tag, but R2 has not reached third base yet, R1 is ruled out even if he's on the base?

 

 

I brought this up and they say that R1 would be out.

 

 

Then you just walk away from the discussion....

[Jimurray]

Ohlradio,

 

On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 received the catcher's attention and gets to the bag safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out!

 

Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged, he is out.

 

 

Second scenario you gave:

 

R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1?

 

Same scenario as above. R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 gets to 2nd safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out! Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which he would be when he is tagged. Because F3 stepped on 1st base, that relieved the force on everyone.

 

The entitlement and occupancy shifts as the play develops. It will either advance, or revert, fluid, depending on the situation. But R1 would not be out if he reached 2nd safely, and R2 reached 3rd safely, on the premise of 7.03, on the double steal or the tag play. 7.03 only applies if R2 has to go back to his original base and they are both there.

 

"On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic."

 

Is your chapter teaching that the PU will check for the timing of when R2 reaches 3B. Or is it always assumed he reaches before R1? If it's really obvious that a slower R3 stumbled but continued to 3B and reached after R1 reached 2B do you still assume R2 reached before R3?

[Jimurray]

Now they are saying that 7.8.c says that if tagged off HIS base he is out. and 3rd is not HIS base. Its R3's base

 

Ask them if they know that Wendelstedt in the WUM rewords the rule and calls I "A" base. Ask them if they know that the NCAA rulebook calls it "THE" base.

[Texas Manny]

Jimurray,

 

On the double steal, the attention of the base umpire follows the ball. In the scenario, F2 threw to F4 in an attempt to put out R1 trying to reach second base. Once the play is called, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 is there, he adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play. If the BU in his glance at 3rd, sees that R2 fell and got himself in a run down, then he adjusts himself to properly be in position to gage and call the run-down tag, if any.

 

The plate umpire, seeing a run-down, between 2nd and 3rd, should hustle up the line, and be prepared to join the run-down to help his partner. Only when the run-down is moving away from him, should the plate umpire move into the 3rd base cut out area, tell his partner "I have this end." and be ready to make a call or assist in any manner the BU may need. Otherwise, his butt is planted at home plate, ready for anything.

 

There is NO timing issue for the PU to check on R2 reaching 3rd. The ball and any play associated with it, can only be at one place at a time. Everything in the game is fluid and moving. Normally, on a double steal, if R1 reached 2nd and the throw went to him, R2 reached 3rd, unless extenuating circumstances caused an issue. The transfer of entitlement and occupancy is fluid and automatic, since all bases were legally acquired.

 

 

WUS Manual,

 

I haven't received mine yet, so I haven't been able to see what you are seeing. I am presently beginning to talk with an instructor of the school there about this play as well. I will let you know what comes about that as well. I will bring that up.

[mstaylor]

Ohlradio,

 

On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 received the catcher's attention and gets to the bag safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out!

 

Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged, he is out.

 

 

Second scenario you gave:

 

R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1?

 

Same scenario as above. R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 gets to 2nd safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out! Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which he would be when he is tagged. Because F3 stepped on 1st base, that relieved the force on everyone.

 

The entitlement and occupancy shifts as the play develops. It will either advance, or revert, fluid, depending on the situation. But R1 would not be out if he reached 2nd safely, and R2 reached 3rd safely, on the premise of 7.03, on the double steal or the tag play. 7.03 only applies if R2 has to go back to his original base and they are both there.

Manny:

Respectfully,you are wrong. As in the original play, the R3 hs legal entitlement to third but the only way R2 gets tagged out is if they both are touching the base at the same time. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have legal right to the base, until R3 is either tagged out, scores or is touching the base, the statuss of R2 can't be determined. If the R3 is on the bag then the trail is out. If R3 scores then R2 gains legal possession. If R3 is anywhere not touching third then he can't legally possess third but it does give him protection from being tagged.   

[mstaylor]

Jimurray,

 

On the double steal, the attention of the base umpire follows the ball. In the scenario, F2 threw to F4 in an attempt to put out R1 trying to reach second base. Once the play is called, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 is there, he adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play. If the BU in his glance at 3rd, sees that R2 fell and got himself in a run down, then he adjusts himself to properly be in position to gage and call the run-down tag, if any.

 

The plate umpire, seeing a run-down, between 2nd and 3rd, should hustle up the line, and be prepared to join the run-down to help his partner. Only when the run-down is moving away from him, should the plate umpire move into the 3rd base cut out area, tell his partner "I have this end." and be ready to make a call or assist in any manner the BU may need. Otherwise, his butt is planted at home plate, ready for anything.

 

There is NO timing issue for the PU to check on R2 reaching 3rd. The ball and any play associated with it, can only be at one place at a time. Everything in the game is fluid and moving. Normally, on a double steal, if R1 reached 2nd and the throw went to him, R2 reached 3rd, unless extenuating circumstances caused an issue. The transfer of entitlement and occupancy is fluid and automatic, since all bases were legally acquired.

 

 

WUS Manual,

 

I haven't received mine yet, so I haven't been able to see what you are seeing. I am presently beginning to talk with an instructor of the school there about this play as well. I will let you know what comes about that as well. I will bring that up.

I agree with all this. Really the only sticking point in this whole mess is whether the trail and current runner have to be be touching for the trail to be tagged out. Or, can he be tagged out if the current runner is in no man land between bases. 

I only address Manny directly because he seems to have the lead of his position, he is not the lone dissenter in the thread. I do enjoy a good rules debate though.  

[Texas Manny]

 

Ohlradio,

 

On the double steal, R1 and R2, if the throw goes back to the trail runner, then R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 received the catcher's attention and gets to the bag safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out!

 

Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which when he is tagged, he is out.

 

 

Second scenario you gave:

 

R1/R2, less than 2 out. Ball hit to the first baseman, he steps on first to eliminate the force. Then he throws to second base to try and retire R1. Are you going to have to look and see if R2 has reached third base yet before making a call on R1?

 

Same scenario as above. R2 can be assumed as to reaching third base. Both legally advanced, entitlement and occupancy shifts. This tends to be fluid and automatic.

 

Now, lets say that R1 gets to 2nd safely. F4 realizes that R2 going toward third, fell down, and throws to F5, and they get R2 in a run-down. R2 safely makes it back to 2nd base. R1 is tagged. He's out! Why? Because R2 didn't advance to 3rd, completing the transfer of entitlement and occupancy. So R2 gets back to his base which he still holds the rights to. R1 is now back in jeopardy to be out, which he would be when he is tagged. Because F3 stepped on 1st base, that relieved the force on everyone.

 

The entitlement and occupancy shifts as the play develops. It will either advance, or revert, fluid, depending on the situation. But R1 would not be out if he reached 2nd safely, and R2 reached 3rd safely, on the premise of 7.03, on the double steal or the tag play. 7.03 only applies if R2 has to go back to his original base and they are both there.

Manny:

Respectfully,you are wrong. As in the original play, the R3 hs legal entitlement to third but the only way R2 gets tagged out is if they both are touching the base at the same time. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have legal right to the base, until R3 is either tagged out, scores or is touching the base, the statuss of R2 can't be determined. If the R3 is on the bag then the trail is out. If R3 scores then R2 gains legal possession. If R3 is anywhere not touching third then he can't legally possess third but it does give him protection from being tagged.   

 

Mike,

 

No offense taken. This is why I contacted Mr. Davis and Mr. Iassogna for clarification.

 

When I read 7.03, you start out with: Two runners may not occupy a base, but...

 

This is where sentence structure comes into play. The "but... up to touching a base," is a conjunctive clause, meaning it can be a sentence all by itself. If removed, the other parts of the statement make a complete sentence. The writer puts a conjuctive clause in a sentence to bring attention to a particular matter within the entire statement, but that the conjunctive is not the entirety of the statement.

 

So, you have without the conjunctive statement:

 

"Two runner may not occupy a base; the following runner shall be out when tagged and the preceding runner is entitled to the base, unless 7.03B applies." They bring the "but" statement in to clarify a scenario within the "Two runners may not occupy a base.", because the "base" is a requirment for a runner to hold in order to be "safe". This idea is in agreement with 7.08C comment concerning the definition of occupancy.

 

This is where the confusion lies in interpretation. That's why I've asked for clarification.