Once in a lifetime call???

[BigZigBlue]

Okay guys, our association guy got a phone call from another assignment secretary from down in south Louisiana ( I am from North Louisiana). They had a big game in which it was a close one. Well the bases were loaded with 1 out. Batter hits a homer/ grand slam, BUT the runner on 1st doesn't know that its a HR so he is tagged up at first. The BR passes up R1 heading to 2nd. The ball has already left the yard at this time. My question is we possible have two outcomes to this situation: 1st: we have an out at first base and leave the bases loaded because of the fact that the runners can't advance because of a NO-FORCE. or 2nd: We have an out but have a 4 base award because the ball has already left the field in which the ball is dead in fair territory so the HR is now a 3 run istead of a grand slam....I am not sure how to call this if this was to happen to me...just like the title....I am sure it's a once in a lifetime situation to be in.

[UmpJM]

LHSAAUmp,

On a home run, all runners are awarded home plate. (Or, in FED, 4 bases - hmmm, does that mean the R3's back on 3B with a run scored afterwards?? I digress...) The "force" has nothing to do with it.

You have three more runs and 2 outs at the end of the sitch.

Who was the coach more pissed at - the BR or the R1? I'm guessing the R1.

JM

[BigZigBlue]

see me and you agree because the ball is dead when it leaves the yard but an out must be given for BR passing up R1...I dont who was the coach more mad at....I don' know what the crew from down south ruled on it. But I love situations.....we also had a coach call us whining about a batter interference call he had go against him..2 outs with runner at 2nd...his batter had 0-2 count and swung and carried over the plate.....the runner stole 3rd and catcher and batter made contact and the crew called the runner out also...he said the runner should go back to 2nd....We said no sir because the batter was ALREADY out at the time of the interference on the pitch at home plate and that the runner is out because simply enough you have to get an out on interference....

[yawetag]

see me and you agree because the ball is dead when it leaves the yard but an out must be given for BR passing up R1...I dont who was the coach more mad at....I don' know what the crew from down south ruled on it. But I love situations.....we also had a coach call us whining about a batter interference call he had go against him..2 outs with runner at 2nd...his batter had 0-2 count and swung and carried over the plate.....the runner stole 3rd and catcher and batter made contact and the crew called the runner out also...he said the runner should go back to 2nd....We said no sir because the batter was ALREADY out at the time of the interference on the pitch at home plate and that the runner is out because simply enough you have to get an out on interference....

Ummm... the batter's out made 3 outs. Why does the play at 3B matter?

[txump81]

My thoughts exactly yawetag.

[JaxRolo]

In the OP how many runs score if there had been 2 outs

[NovaScotiaBlue]

In the OP how many runs score if there had been 2 outs

Would it then be a timing play. PU be awake!!!

[JaxRolo]

In the OP how many runs score if there had been 2 outs

Would it then be a timing play. PU be awake!!!

That is what I would think but I would like someone that knows to verify it. :confused:

[BigZigBlue]

see me and you agree because the ball is dead when it leaves the yard but an out must be given for BR passing up R1...I dont who was the coach more mad at....I don' know what the crew from down south ruled on it. But I love situations.....we also had a coach call us whining about a batter interference call he had go against him..2 outs with runner at 2nd...his batter had 0-2 count and swung and carried over the plate.....the runner stole 3rd and catcher and batter made contact and the crew called the runner out also...he said the runner should go back to 2nd....We said no sir because the batter was ALREADY out at the time of the interference on the pitch at home plate and that the runner is out because simply enough you have to get an out on interference....

Ummm... the batter's out made 3 outs. Why does the play at 3B matter?

misquoted the email I got it was only 1 out at the time...when he kid struck out that is now 2 outs and they called the runner out going to 3rd because of the batter already being out...My bad on misinforming ya'll I was a little tired last night when putting the OP up.

[Mr Umpire]

In the OP how many runs score if there had been 2 outs

Would it then be a timing play. PU be awake!!!

That is what I would think but I would like someone that knows to verify it.

It's a time play. Any time a trail runner is called out for passing, it is a time play and the PU better pay attention regardless if it is a HR or not. The reason is b/c it is a trail runner who is out and not a lead runner who may be forced. The trail runner is not forced at the time it occurs even though the lead runner may have been.

[BigZigBlue]

.

[Rich Ives]

It's a time play. Any time a trail runner is called out for passing, it is a time play and the PU better pay attention regardless if it is a HR or not. The reason is b/c it is a trail runner who is out and not a lead runner who may be forced. The trail runner is not forced at the time it occurs even though the lead runner may have been.

That is what our assignment secretary said that it would change into a timing play. But does the run count from third if he has crossed before the time of the "passing" or the time of the ball going out of the yard?

I understand the reasoning behind the timing play. BUT what about the HR and 4 base award for the runners since the BR will be called out....I think both of these rulings can be used either way in perspective. Just need to know an exact ruling for FED for this.

ALL runners are awarded four bases. It's not about a force - it's an award.

If a runner passes another - he's out. Doesn't change the award to the other runners.

On a HR in FED, even if the passing is the thiird out the other runs score on the award. See casebook 9.1.1.M (2010 book). You'll probably wat to look it up, but it's there (or was in 2010).

[JaxRolo]

It's a time play. Any time a trail runner is called out for passing, it is a time play and the PU better pay attention regardless if it is a HR or not. The reason is b/c it is a trail runner who is out and not a lead runner who may be forced. The trail runner is not forced at the time it occurs even though the lead runner may have been.

That is what our assignment secretary said that it would change into a timing play. But does the run count from third if he has crossed before the time of the "passing" or the time of the ball going out of the yard?

I understand the reasoning behind the timing play. BUT what about the HR and 4 base award for the runners since the BR will be called out....I think both of these rulings can be used either way in perspective. Just need to know an exact ruling for FED for this.

ALL runners are awarded four bases. It's not about a force - it's an award.

If a runner passes another - he's out. Doesn't change the award to the other runners.

On a HR in FED, even if the passing is the thiird out the other runs score on the award. See casebook 9.1.1.M (2010 book). You'll probably wat to look it up, but it's there (or was in 2010).

Here is the 2011 Case Book.

9.1.1 SITUATION M: With R1 at second base and R2 at first base and two outs,

B5 hits a home run out of the park. While running the bases, B5 (a) passes R2 at

first or B5 maliciously runs over F4. RULING: In both (a) and b, B5 is declared

out. R1 and R2 will be awarded home and allowed to score due to the award from

the home run. B5's out is not a "force out" so the other runs will count. In (b B5

would also be ejected for malicious contact.

[ukce1861]

ALL runners are awarded four bases. It's not about a force - it's an award.

If a runner passes another - he's out. Doesn't change the award to the other runners.

On a HR in FED, even if the passing is the thiird out the other runs score on the award. See casebook 9.1.1.M (2010 book). You'll probably wat to look it up, but it's there (or was in 2010).

What about other rule codes? Any official interpretations on this? The awards don't supersede the requirement to legally run the bases, so I would have a hard time not treating this as a timing play. But given the FED interp, this might be incorrect.

I have had the pleasure of calling an out on a HR for this, but it was not with two outs. Stupid runner turned around and started trying to high-five the batter, as they were coming towards home. The batter just ignored him and touched HP right before the runner...

[Rich Ives]

ALL runners are awarded four bases. It's not about a force - it's an award.

If a runner passes another - he's out. Doesn't change the award to the other runners.

On a HR in FED, even if the passing is the thiird out the other runs score on the award. See casebook 9.1.1.M (2010 book). You'll probably wat to look it up, but it's there (or was in 2010).

What about other rule codes? Any official interpretations on this? The awards don't supersede the requirement to legally run the bases, so I would have a hard time not treating this as a timing play. But given the FED interp, this might be incorrect.

I have had the pleasure of calling an out on a HR for this, but it was not with two outs. Stupid runner turned around and started trying to high-five the batter, as they were coming towards home. The batter just ignored him and touched HP right before the runner...

In the other codes it IS a timing play. FED is unique on this play.

[ukce1861]

What about other rule codes? Any official interpretations on this? The awards don't supersede the requirement to legally run the bases, so I would have a hard time not treating this as a timing play. But given the FED interp, this might be incorrect.

In the other codes it IS a timing play. FED is unique on this play.

Rich, anything official on this being a timing play in other codes? This came up in our LL clinic on Saturday. I argued the time play, but I was in the minority...

[Rich Ives]

What about other rule codes? Any official interpretations on this? The awards don't supersede the requirement to legally run the bases, so I would have a hard time not treating this as a timing play. But given the FED interp, this might be incorrect.

In the other codes it IS a timing play. FED is unique on this play.

Rich, anything official on this being a timing play in other codes? This came up in our LL clinic on Saturday. I argued the time play, but I was in the minority...

Well - it's not a force. What else is there? Basis is the rule that scores runs before three are out.

[ukce1861]

Well - it's not a force. What else is there? Basis is the rule that scores runs before three are out.

I agree... Like I said, I argued, but to no avail. Just wanted to see if there was anything black and white... 4.11© in OBR specifically addresses this and calls it a time play. 4.11© in LL does not, although the remainder of the rule is the same...

[mstaylor]

Well - it's not a force. What else is there? Basis is the rule that scores runs before three are out.

I agree... Like I said, I argued, but to no avail. Just wanted to see if there was anything black and white... 4.11© in OBR specifically addresses this and calls it a time play. 4.11© in LL does not, although the remainder of the rule is the same...

From the LL RIM

APPROVED RULING: The batter hits a home run out of the playing field to win the game in the last half of the sixth [JUNIOR/SENIOR/BIG LEAGUE BASEBALL/SOFTBALL: seventh] or an extra inning, but is called out for passing a preceding runner. The game ends immediately when the winning run is scored.

It doesn't directly address a timing play but it is. Basically if it is in OBR and LL doesn't issue a rule or ruling to counteract the OBR then default to it.

[ukce1861]

Want another complication to this whole time play/homerun debate?

9.1.1.M says they're awarded four bases, regardless of what happens, so the runs score. 3.3.1.Y says it's a timing play and the bases are not awarded, "but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made." This is from the 2010 casebook. Anybody know if 2011 is different?

[mstaylor]

Want another complication to this whole time play/homerun debate?

9.1.1.M says they're awarded four bases, regardless of what happens, so the runs score. 3.3.1.Y says it's a timing play and the bases are not awarded, "but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made." This is from the 2010 casebook. Anybody know if 2011 is different?

3.3.1Y is now 3.3.1X in the 2011 casebook. The difference between the two cites are 9.1.1M references actions by the BR, 3.3.1X addresses a runner. The OP would fall under 9.1.1M, call the BR out for passing and award the three bases. The same infraction by a runner, if it is a force with two outs, no runs, not a force then it is a time play and any runs scored before the out scores.

[noumpere]

Want another complication to this whole time play/homerun debate?

9.1.1.M says they're awarded four bases, regardless of what happens, so the runs score. 3.3.1.Y says it's a timing play and the bases are not awarded, "but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made." This is from the 2010 casebook. Anybody know if 2011 is different?

Case 9.1.1.M is the same in 2011 but the other case you sited doesnt seem to apply here. Note that although I disagree with the HS interpretation in the passing on a home run case its not inconsistent with the other quote you make about the right to advance. In the home run case if the batter had missed first and then was appealed no runs would score even in HS.

let me edit to add- or what mstaylor said. lol.

[ukce1861]

3.3.1Y is now 3.3.1X in the 2011 casebook. The difference between the two cites are 9.1.1M references actions by the BR, 3.3.1X addresses a runner. The OP would fall under 9.1.1M, call the BR out for passing and award the three bases. The same infraction by a runner, if it is a force with two outs, no runs, not a force then it is a time play and any runs scored before the out scores.

Why on earth would the infraction be treated differently for the BR as opposed to any other runner? Don't see how that makes sense...

[mstaylor]

Sigh! I can explain why they wrote it that way, I mearly explain what Fed says. I agree it is screwy.

[noumpere]

3.3.1Y is now 3.3.1X in the 2011 casebook. The difference between the two cites are 9.1.1M references actions by the BR, 3.3.1X addresses a runner. The OP would fall under 9.1.1M, call the BR out for passing and award the three bases. The same infraction by a runner, if it is a force with two outs, no runs, not a force then it is a time play and any runs scored before the out scores.

Why on earth would the infraction be treated differently for the BR as opposed to any other runner? Don't see how that makes sense...

Its not that a different runner committed the same infraction its that different infractions were committed. One was passing a runner and since thats not a force and since the award happened first the other runners get to finish the award according to the HS logic which I dont agree with but I kind of understand. The other is a missed base and since that was also a force no runs score but if the runner had missed a non-forced base then the other runs would still score.