run down-rules involved??

[Jimurray]

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

[Texas Manny]

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

[Jimurray]

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN AND REACHES 2nd Base (EDITED FOR GRAYHAWK). That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns rights to 2nd.

[JaxRolo]

Here is the latest info given to me:

 

Here is the scenario. Runners on first and third, 1 out. BR. hits gb to F4. F4 throws home F2 throws back to third catching R3 in a rundown. BR has acquired 1B on hit therefore a force play is on. (Technically bases are loaded). If two runners occupy a base on a force situation the lead runner is entitled to the base. The preceding runner is out. In this case is R3 is entitled to 3B, R1 is entitled to 2B, and the BR is entitled to 1B.

So in this situation. R1 is out as described above. R3 was tagged out after stepping off 3rd base. R3 is the third out . That's a good call by U3.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

 

Where did I say that a runner touching a base and he's the only one touching it can be put out in the quotes you boxed above?

 

I've only said when R2 tries to return to second base, and reaches safely, can R1 be put out.

 

Okay, I see where you can "think" I said that. I went back and fixed it, so no confusion.

[Jimurray]

Here is the latest info given to me:

 

Here is the scenario. Runners on first and third, 1 out. BR. hits gb to F4. F4 throws home F2 throws back to third catching R3 in a rundown. BR has acquired 1B on hit therefore a force play is on. (Technically bases are loaded). If two runners occupy a base on a force situation the lead runner is entitled to the base. The preceding runner is out. In this case is R3 is entitled to 3B, R1 is entitled to 2B, and the BR is entitled to 1B.

So in this situation. R1 is out as described above. R3 was tagged out after stepping off 3rd base. R3 is the third out . That's a good call by U3.

There was no force situation and if there was the trail runner owns the base. It's amazing the rationalization that can take place when you (not you Jax) don't want to say an MLB umpires saw something incorrectly.

[grayhawk]

Here is the latest info given to me:

 

Here is the scenario. Runners on first and third, 1 out. BR. hits gb to F4. F4 throws home F2 throws back to third catching R3 in a rundown. BR has acquired 1B on hit therefore a force play is on. (Technically bases are loaded). If two runners occupy a base on a force situation the lead runner is entitled to the base. The preceding runner is out. In this case is R3 is entitled to 3B, R1 is entitled to 2B, and the BR is entitled to 1B.

So in this situation. R1 is out as described above. R3 was tagged out after stepping off 3rd base. R3 is the third out . That's a good call by U3.

 

This is nonsensical.  R1 was only forced to second, not third.  There is no force at third.  Also, in a force situation, the following runner has legal right to the base, not the lead runner.  Was the above originally written in crayon?

 

[ohlradio]

Look, can we all just agree that unless someone brings forward new information - we leave this alone? This is just going around and 'round and in a lot of cases it seems like we're agreeing on most things but too many words are being thrown around that ends up making things muddy again.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

 

Where did I say that a runner touching a base and he's the only one touching it can be put out in the quotes you boxed above?

 

I've only said when R2 tries to return to second base, and reaches safely, can R1 be put out.

 

Okay, I see where you can "think" I said that. I went back and fixed it, so no confusion.

 

 

I interpreted this: "The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out." to mean that R1 could be tagged out before R2 actually returns to, and is touching, second base.  If you are saying that R1 can't be tagged out while touching second unless and until R2 is also touching second, then I agree and apologize.

[Jimurray]

 

 

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

 

Where did I say that a runner touching a base and he's the only one touching it can be put out in the quotes you boxed above?

 

I've only said when R2 tries to return to second base, and reaches safely, can R1 be put out.

 

Okay, I see where you can "think" I said that. I went back and fixed it, so no confusion.

 

Your logic says that R1 can be put out when R2 is not returning but has not yet acquired 3B. But you've added the "principle of fluidity of entitlement" to correct your mistaken logic.

[Texas Manny]

 

Here is the latest info given to me:

 

Here is the scenario. Runners on first and third, 1 out. BR. hits gb to F4. F4 throws home F2 throws back to third catching R3 in a rundown. BR has acquired 1B on hit therefore a force play is on. (Technically bases are loaded). If two runners occupy a base on a force situation the lead runner is entitled to the base. The preceding runner is out. In this case is R3 is entitled to 3B, R1 is entitled to 2B, and the BR is entitled to 1B.

So in this situation. R1 is out as described above. R3 was tagged out after stepping off 3rd base. R3 is the third out . That's a good call by U3.

There was no force situation and if there was the trail runner owns the base. It's amazing the rationalization that can take place when you (not you Jax) don't want to say an MLB umpires saw something incorrectly.

 

Agree. The provisions of 7.03B where force is concerned, is not in play here.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

 

Where did I say that a runner touching a base and he's the only one touching it can be put out in the quotes you boxed above?

 

I've only said when R2 tries to return to second base, and reaches safely, can R1 be put out.

 

Okay, I see where you can "think" I said that. I went back and fixed it, so no confusion.

 

Your logic says that R1 can be put out when R2 is not returning but has not yet acquired 3B. But you've added the "principle of fluidity of entitlement" to correct your mistaken logic.

 

I have never said that, nor does my logic follow that premise. I have always said only if R2 returns safely to his original base can R1 be put out because he's not entitled to 2nd. Unless R1 gets back to 1st base safely, when tagged, he's out, no matter where he is.

 

Honestly, go back and read...

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manny,

 

I'll reword your double steal postulate. Would you call It like this?

 

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 R2 is called safe, the BU will glance at 3rd base. Once he makes determination that R2 fell down and then continued to 3B, arriving much later than R1 at 2B, the BU will reverse his safe call to an out call because 2B was not R1s base at the time of the tag. He adjusts himself in the imaginary square behind the mound in position for any other play.

Jimurray,

 

That would be incorrect because, even though R2 fell down, he still reached 3rd safely, thus receiving entitlement and occupancy rights to 3rd, satisfying 7.01, and 2nd base is now free for a trailing runner to legally acquire, and in this case R1 has, so entitlement and occupancy now belongs to him.

 

Again, entitlement and occupancy are fluid and automatic, provided everything works the way it should. My unedited statement is correct.

 

 

But at the time of the tag of R1 R2 still had entitlement to 2B and according to your reading of the rules R1 should be out for being tagged off of "his" base which was 1B.

 

I don't think you are understanding the fluidity of the situation. The ball and play can only be at one place. You cannot possibly get two players out at two different bases at the same time under normal circumstances. R2, albeit slower, for whatever reason, reaches 3rd base. The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out. That's the difference. You're trying to mix apples (reaching third) with oranges (returning to 2nd). Because R2 made third safely, legally, he has entitlement of 3rd now, and no longer owns it to 2nd.

 

 

I disagree with this with every fiber of my being.  If a runner is touching a base, and he's the only one touching it, then he CANNOT be tagged for an out unless he has been forced from it, or unless it's for the purposes of an appeal.  Never, ever, ever - EVER.

 

Where did I say that a runner touching a base and he's the only one touching it can be put out in the quotes you boxed above?

 

I've only said when R2 tries to return to second base, and reaches safely, can R1 be put out.

 

Okay, I see where you can "think" I said that. I went back and fixed it, so no confusion.

 

 

I interpreted this: "The fluidity of entitlement rears itself when R2 TRIES TO RETURN to 2nd Base. That's when R1 can be put in jeopardy to be put out." to mean that R1 could be tagged out before R2 actually returns to, and is touching, second base.  If you are saying that R1 can't be tagged out while touching second unless and until R2 is also touching second, then I agree and apologize.

 

Responses are overlapping responses. I corrected to clarify. Only if R2 TRIES TO RETURN AND REACHES 2ND BASE (safely)...

 

I figured everyone understood that. I will make sure of clarity in answering.

 

No harm, no foul.

[Jimurray]

 Only if R2 TRIES TO RETURN AND REACHES 2ND BASE (safely)...

 

Manny, so in the original OP, R3 returns and reaches 3B safely but is now off of the base you say R3s entitlement takes effect and R1 is out even though he is the only one touching 3B?

What if R3 gets back to 3B standing up with R1 on it also. But the ball is overthrown and R3  steps off thinking of going home. Is R1 still vulnerable to being put out if they tag him as the only runner on 3B?

[grayhawk]

To clarify, what if the following occurred?

 

Double steal.

R1 reaches second safely.

Throw comes to F4.

R2 has fallen down, and F4 throws to F5.

F5 runs R2 back to second and he dives in ahead of the tag.

R2 then rolls off the base (intentionally or not) and is NOT touching it (and is not being tagged)

R1 is now tagged, while still standing on second (but R2 is not touching second)

 

Are you saying R1 is still safe, or out at the moment of the tag?

[mstaylor]

Safe

[grayhawk]

Safe

 

I know what you have Mike, and I agree that R1 is safe if R2 is not touching the base when R1 is tagged.  Curious to hear what Manny has based on his reading of the rules.

[Texas Manny]

 Only if R2 TRIES TO RETURN AND REACHES 2ND BASE (safely)...

 

Manny, so in the original OP, R3 returns and reaches 3B safely but is now off of the base you say R3s entitlement takes effect and R1 is out even though he is the only one touching 3B?

What if R3 gets back to 3B standing up with R1 on it also. But the ball is overthrown and R3  steps off thinking of going home. Is R1 still vulnerable to being put out if they tag him as the only runner on 3B?

Jimurray,

 

You ask: R3 returns and reaches 3B safely but is now off of the base you say R3s entitlement takes effect and R1 is out even though he is the only one touching 3B?

 

My answer:

 

If R1 is tagged first: He's out. 7.03

If R3 is then tagged: He's out. 7.08C

 

If R3 is tagged first, He's out. 7.08C

R1 is safe because R3's retirement establishes R1's entitlement and occupancy on 3rd base.

 

Then,

 

You asked: What if R3 gets back to 3B standing up with R1 on it also. But the ball is overthrown and R3 steps off thinking of going home. Is R1 still vulnerable to being put out if they tag him as the only runner on 3B?

 

My answer:

 

R3 attempts to go home. If the defense throws to home plate to put him out, and R3 slides in safely, then R1 is entitled to 3rd base, because R3 scored, relieving his entitlement and occupancy. 7.01

 

R3 attempts to go home, but they throw to the bag. R3 dive's back to the bag, or gets in another run-down.

 

If R3 is tagged first, and is ruled "Out", then R1 is entitled to 3rd base.  7.01

 

If R3 is tagged sliding back into 3rd, but ruled "Safe!", then R1 is in jeopardy and will be "out" when tagged.  7.03, 7.08B Comment - Definition of Occupancy

 

If R1 is tagged first, then R3 who is off the bag, then R1 and R3 are "out".  7.01, 7.03, 7.08B Comment - Definition of Occupancy (This is the argument case)

 

If R1 is tagged first, and R3 is safely on the bag, then R1 is "out". 7.03, 7.08B Comment - Definition of Occupancy

[Texas Manny]

To clarify, what if the following occurred?

 

Double steal.

R1 reaches second safely.

Throw comes to F4.

R2 has fallen down, and F4 throws to F5.

F5 runs R2 back to second and he dives in ahead of the tag.

R2 then rolls off the base (intentionally or not) and is NOT touching it (and is not being tagged)

R1 is now tagged, while still standing on second (but R2 is not touching second)

 

Are you saying R1 is still safe, or out at the moment of the tag?

Grayhawk:

 

R1 is out - 7.03

R2 is out - 7.08C

 

I'm interpreting rolling off his base to be he lost his balance or footing because no one just "rolls" off the base.

 

Because:

 

R2 still has legal entitlement and occupancy rights to 2nd base, even off the bag. Had they tagged R2 first, that all goes away and R1 is safe. Because they tagged R1 first, he's out because two cannot occupy a base at the same time, and R2 is out for being off his bag when tagged. Remember, he is right next to his bag, a distance not reasonable to consider him trying to advance.

 

7.08C Comment states that a runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally reaches the next succeeding base. R2 hasn't done that, so 2nd base is still wholly his.

 

 

This is the key to the argument and why I asked for clarification from Gerry Davis and MLB. This is where we disagree.

[Jimurray]

Manny,

Are you getting the definition of "occupancy" from 7.08©Approved ruling(2)?

APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play,

any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying

the base if, in the umpire’s judgment, he touches or occupies the point marked by

the dislodged bag.

Doesn't that allow for a following runner to occupy a base without being entitled to it?

[Texas Manny]

Manny,

Are you getting the definition of "occupancy" from 7.08©Approved ruling(2)?

APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play,

any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying

the base if, in the umpire’s judgment, he touches or occupies the point marked by

the dislodged bag.

Doesn't that allow for a following runner to occupy a base without being entitled to it?

Oops. My bad. So many... 7.08B Comment. Fixed in original thread post

 

7.08B Comment reads, in parenthesis, which means it is defining: ...a runner is considered to occupy his base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base.)

 

That means, that anywhere from his entitled base, to the millimeter in front of the succeeding base, he is considered occupying his entitled base. Once he touches the succeeding base, his entitlement and occupancy changes because he legally acquired the next base.

 

The reason that I keep saying that R1 is out, even though he is on the base is because he has not legally acquired the succeeding base because it is still occupied by the preceding runner. That condition gets lifted when the preceding runner is either put out, or reaches his next base legally and safely.

[Jimurray]

Manny,

Are you getting the definition of "occupancy" from 7.08©Approved ruling(2)?

APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play,

any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying

the base if, in the umpire’s judgment, he touches or occupies the point marked by

the dislodged bag.

Doesn't that allow for a following runner to occupy a base without being entitled to it?

Oops. My bad. So many... 7.08B Comment.

 

I'll go fix it.

In any case doesn't 7.08©Approved ruling (2) allow a runner to occupy a base (basepoint) without regard to whether it is legal or not?

In addition the 7.08 (b) comment also mentions a legally occupied base. Thus they leave open the possibility of an illegally occupied base.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

Manny,

Are you getting the definition of "occupancy" from 7.08©Approved ruling(2)?

APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play,

any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying

the base if, in the umpire’s judgment, he touches or occupies the point marked by

the dislodged bag.

Doesn't that allow for a following runner to occupy a base without being entitled to it?

Oops. My bad. So many... 7.08B Comment.

 

I'll go fix it.

 

In any case doesn't 7.08©Approved ruling (2) allow a runner to occupy a base (basepoint) without regard to whether it is legal or not?

In addition the 7.08 (b) comment also mentions a legally occupied base. Thus they leave open the possibility of an illegally occupied base.

 

Just because a runner stands on a base, doesn't mean he is legally entitled to it. You cannot occupy a base without being legally entitled to it. So when a manager has trail runners move up during a run-down, they are taking a chance on:

 

A) The defense tags the run down player first, so his team holds the base with another player.

B) The defense tags the wrong player first in a choice between the two fielders. His team will still hold the base.

 

R1 in Iassogna situation may have stood on 3rd base, but he neither was legally entitled to it, or legally occupied it.