Weird play in Cubs-Mets game

[Gfoley4]

 

Agree with call here? There was a lot of confusion on my twitter feed as to why R2 isn't out for passing R3

[ElkOil]

I'd call it this way:

Murphy is out for being tagged while off 2B and ineligible to occupy 3B because Tejada had not yet acquired the next base nor was he put out.

Tejada is out for being tagged off 3B.

If Tejada was tagged out first, Murphy would be safe.  

[goody14]

I think the only time you worry about whose base it is if when both are touching it at the same time - not the case in this play.

Wendelstedt manual says it is only passing if the passing happens "along the baseline". The original R3 is not along the baseline after passing 3rd since he is in foul territory (although it is close). If he would have backtracked and been in fair territory or the runner (original R2) would have left third while original R3 was behind base - then you have passing. I am looking at the pictures on pages 163 and 164 of the book.

So, in this play, you don't have passing, you don't have double occupancy of a base - you just have Tejada being tagged while off a base. I think they got it right (although before looking in the manual, I thought they kicked it again proving why they are pros and I do high school).

[basejester]

I think the last time something like this happened they called it abandonment.  The umpire clearly calls the out in response to the tag, but the huddle may have determined abandonment prior to the tag.

 

[Gfoley4]

I think the last time something like this happened they called it abandonment.  The umpire clearly calls the out in response to the tag, but the huddle may have determined abandonment prior to the tag.

 

You're right! https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/616450546023690240

Edited July 2, 2015 by Gfoley4

[Lindsay]

It's abandonment. The 2014-era OBR citations are 7.01 (prohibits R3 from returning to second base - see that Segura stealing first base play for MLB's affirmation that runners cannot run backwards [if you start the play on 3rd, you can't go back to 2nd]), 7.08(a)(1) (out for leaving his baseline while the catcher is chasing him since the only two bases he can try for are 3B and HP) or 7.08(a)(2) (abandonment). Can't be 7.03(a) (simultaneous occupation R2/R3) since that never happened and can't be 7.08(h) for when two runners do occupy the same base, they are considered to have "pulled even" and, as previously established, R3 cannot return to second base. R2 never stepped past third base, so there's no possibility of passing.

It happened in 2012 as well - Twins/Royals.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Gil: Owner - UEFL

[mrumpiresir]

I'd call it this way:

Murphy is out for being tagged while off 2B and ineligible to occupy 3B because Tejada had not yet acquired the next base nor was he put out.

Tejada is out for being tagged off 3B.

If Tejada was tagged out first, Murphy would be safe.  

​I think you would be wrong. If Murphy is tagged while touching 3rd base while Tejada is off the bag, Murphy would not be out.  

[maven]

3B was simultaneously occupied very briefly, but no tags were applied at the time. We've seen THAT play: two runners both on the bag and both tagged, one of them is out, and usually the other steps off and is tagged off base for a double play. Sometimes preventable by good mechanics, but sometimes not.

For the OP, I like abandonment for R3 retreating behind 3B into LF in this play, since this R3 had pretty clearly abandoned his effort to run the bases.

Alternatively, had R3 just retreated behind 3B in order to avoid the tag (was "dodging" rather than "giving up"), you could rule that he was out of the baseline more than 3 feet in order to avoid a tag. Once he reaches 3B, he must either stay there or turn and go to HP, the only 2 bases he may legally occupy.

Note that either way, the ball remains live, and the defense may play on other runners.

Anybody want to get U3 for umpire INT when he physically assisted R2?

Weird indeed, and VERY challenging to get right on the spot.

Gil needs to get a copy of 2015 OBR and update his citations.

[ElkOil]

​I think you would be wrong. If Murphy is tagged while touching 3rd base while Tejada is off the bag, Murphy would not be out.  

​You'll get no argument from me.  I'm usually wrong about these things.  Luckily, I haven't come across anything like this in real life... yet.

My consolation on this is what I initially thought was also what the first call was on the field.  That and a couple of bucks will get me a cup of coffee...

[Lindsay]

Gil needs to get a copy of 2015 OBR and update his citations.

​I have the conversion guide. Let's see if I have this right.

Citations were 7.01, 7.08(a)(1), 7.08(a)(2), with 7.03(a) and 7.08(h) as non sequiturs.

That should translate to 5.06(a)(1), 5.09(b)(2), and 5.06(a)(2), 5.09(b)(1).

[ALStripes17]

3B was simultaneously occupied very briefly, but no tags were applied at the time. We've seen THAT play: two runners both on the bag and both tagged, one of them is out, and usually the other steps off and is tagged off base for a double play. Sometimes preventable by good mechanics, but sometimes not.

For the OP, I like abandonment for R3 retreating behind 3B into LF in this play, since this R3 had pretty clearly abandoned his effort to run the bases.

Alternatively, had R3 just retreated behind 3B in order to avoid the tag (was "dodging" rather than "giving up"), you could rule that he was out of the baseline more than 3 feet in order to avoid a tag. Once he reaches 3B, he must either stay there or turn and go to HP, the only 2 bases he may legally occupy.

Note that either way, the ball remains live, and the defense may play on other runners.

Anybody want to get U3 for umpire INT when he physically assisted R2?

Weird indeed, and VERY challenging to get right on the spot.

Gil needs to get a copy of 2015 OBR and update his citations.

Is it possible to make the argument that R2 passed R3 before R3's abandonment is justified? R3 does go on the 2B side of 3B while R2 is on the foul side of 3B. I'm not seeing why that isn't considered passing. Well aware of the Wendelstadt diagrams, but they show R3 retreating in foul territory (outside of 3B) as 'not passing' Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

Is it possible to make the argument that R2 passed R3 before R3's abandonment is justified? R3 does go on the 2B side of 3B while R2 is on the foul side of 3B. I'm not seeing why that isn't considered passing. Well aware of the Wendelstadt diagrams, but they show R3 retreating in foul territory (outside of 3B) as 'not passing' Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

​You can't make that case here. When R2 and R3 are both touching 3B, it is not passing, no matter what their configuration in space, because they are in the same spot (on 3B, even though only 1 is entitled to the base, which isn't the issue).

But R3 can "retreat" only to, not "behind," 3B. Since he cannot legally acquire 2B, no matter where he goes on the field R2 has not passed him. If R2 advances beyond 3B, then you might have passing, but not if R3 retreats.

When R3 retreats behind 3B, then we need to know why: if he's giving up, then it's abandonment, not passing. If he's avoiding a tag, then it's that, not passing. If he's making a travesty of the game (please don't call that), then it's that, not passing. Whatever it is, it's not passing.

[ALStripes17]

​You can't make that case here. When R2 and R3 are both touching 3B, it is not passing, no matter what their configuration in space, because they are in the same spot (on 3B, even though only 1 is entitled to the base, which isn't the issue).

But R3 can "retreat" only to, not "behind," 3B. Since he cannot legally acquire 2B, no matter where he goes on the field R2 has not passed him. If R2 advances beyond 3B, then you might have passing, but not if R3 retreats.

When R3 retreats behind 3B, then we need to know why: if he's giving up, then it's abandonment, not passing. If he's avoiding a tag, then it's that, not passing. If he's making a travesty of the game (please don't call that), then it's that, not passing. Whatever it is, it's not passing.

Very odd rationale, but definitely makes sense. Have you seen the Wendelstadt diagrams I'm talking about? It is also odd that it does have a diagram that distinguishes 'outside 3B' as a potential key factor though. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

 

 

Very odd rationale, but definitely makes sense. Have you seen the Wendelstadt diagrams I'm talking about? It is also odd that it does have a diagram that distinguishes 'outside 3B' as a potential key factor though. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

​I have not, for one.  Could you post?  I agree with Maven's analysis -- that in this instance, you cannot get an out for passing.

[goody14]

 

[ALStripes17]

Haha, goody beat me to it.

He must also be in the FED FB group.

[goody14]

After reading Maven's post, I think this probably applies more to the case where runners start on R1 and R2. As he said, if the guy starts on R3 he cannot acquire 2B.

It does make it look like those there is a difference between being "behind" a base versus being back "towards" a base.

[DVA7130]

There is no way that is abandonment four feet past third. Come on... R2 standing there does not change that. All we have is R3 being tagged out. I would support a call for passing a runner, but I favor not being called unless R2 continues towards home or R3 moves toward second.

[johnnyg08]

Passing is simply not relevant here in any case.  The first being that no passing actually occurred.  

Rules have established that once R3 legally acquired third base, he can't retreat to 2B.  If he did, R3 would be out, not R2 for passing.  

Passing is not a part of this conversation.  

This play is ALL about abandonment.  Period.

[ALStripes17]

Passing is simply not relevant here in any case.  The first being that no passing actually occurred.  

Rules have established that once R3 legally acquired third base, he can't retreat to 2B.  If he did, R3 would be out, not R2 for passing.  

Passing is not a part of this conversation.  

This play is ALL about abandonment.  Period.

The rules don't keep R3 from retreating to 2B here unless he is making a travesty...? Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[kanedog]

R3 can retreat to 2nd base as mentioned by ALStripes17.  

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/jean-segura-steals-second-then-steals-first-bizarre-103642855--mlb.html

 

Murphy was out on the tag since Tejada 'occupied' 3B once he touched it, then Tejada was out when he was tagged.  You don't have to get into abandonment, passing or anything else here.  I agree with ElkOil.

 

 

[maven]

There is no way that is abandonment four feet past third. Come on... R2 standing there does not change that. All we have is R3 being tagged out.

​Abandonment is not tied to a distance, but rather an attitude: we must judge whether a runner (who has touched 1B) is continuing or abandoning his attempt to run the bases. There simply is no distance criterion involved in that judgment (for OBR).

[maven]

R3 can retreat to 2nd base as mentioned by ALStripes17.  

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/jean-segura-steals-second-then-steals-first-bizarre-103642855--mlb.html

​No, R3 cannot retreat to 2B. The video you cite concerns R1, who started the play on 1B, then acquired 2B, then returned to 1B before F1 took his position on the rubber. That baserunning is legal, since R1 is returning to the base on which he started.

In the OP, R3 started on 3B: by rule, he may not retreat to 2B (or 1B) at any time during the play. In effect, then, wherever he runs on the field — and he may try to advance by running anywhere — he is not retreating to 2B.

That fact explains why R2 standing on 3B cannot have passed R3: wherever R3 goes, he's always between 3B and HP. If R2 does not step past 3B, then he has not passed R3.

QED

[kanedog]

The video you cite concerns R1, who started the play on 1B, then acquired 2B, then returned to 1B before F1 took his position on the rubber. That baserunning is legal, since R1 is returning to the base on which he started.

 

​After Ryan Braun walked, the Brewers had runners on first and second with no outs and elected to call for the double steal.

 

• The double steal is thwarted by Shawn Camp, who attempts to pick Segura off and start a good old-fashioned game of pickle.

 

Segura started at 2nd base and Braun was at 1st.  How is that any different than 2nd and 3rd?

[maven]

​Segura started at 2nd base and Braun was at 1st.  How is that any different than 2nd and 3rd?

​

It's different because that play happened in 2013, and then 7.01 COMMENT was added to prevent it happening again.