Weird play in Cubs-Mets game

[Lindsay]

In other words, the Jean Segura mess (and ensuing 2015 OBR 5.06(a)/5.06(c) Comment [2014 OBR 7.01 Comment]) made it clear that a preceding runner in this situation has to have either abandoned or gone out of the base path (if chased by the fielder) when he retreats past the base (e.g., three feet past) he started play on. The CP and interp manuals will of course have the trailing runner out for passing if preceding runner rounds the base and runs back toward the previously occupied base because said interps were crafted before 5.06(a)/(c) / 7.01 Comment found its way into the rules book.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Gil: Owner - UEFL

[johnnyg08]

Related play from three years ago.  

http://m.mlb.com/video/v23233743/minkc-umps-confer-rule-casilla-out-at-third

 

 

[maven]

Related play from three years ago.  

http://m.mlb.com/video/v23233743/minkc-umps-confer-rule-casilla-out-at-third

 

​This one is more obviously abandonment. DJ nailed it.

[noumpere]

​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?

​I'm pretty sure MLB came out and said that R2 should have been out when / as he returned to first.  (iirc, the umpires got it wrong and MLB "corrected" them -- I didn't go back and look it up)

[johnnyg08]

​I'm pretty sure MLB came out and said that R2 should have been out when / as he returned to first.  (iirc, the umpires got it wrong and MLB "corrected" them -- I didn't go back and look it up)

​I believe you are correct...they might have also added language to the rule book.

[DVA7130]

​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).

It is in out judgment, but it is universally accepted that overrunning a base by three steps no matter the direction is not abandonment. That is a ridiculous argument. Abandonment is a last case, 'wow he's almost to the dugout' mindset. "Attitude"? Where is that in OBR? He was tagged off base. Let it play out.

[johnnyg08]

Sure it is...why would anybody intentionally overrun third base or second base when they're trying to be "safe"

If you're giving yourself up, you're going to keep running because you know you're going to be called out.

[mrumpiresir]

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.

 

 

​No.  Tejada had legal possession of 3rd but was not touching (occupying) the bag when Murphy was tagged.  Murphy is not out unless he is tagged while Tejada is also touching the bag.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I do know the actual reason R3 was called out.. abandonment.. although a bunch of folks wanted passing. I can confirm this 100% 

[johnnyg08]

I do know the actual reason R3 was called out.. abandonment.. although a bunch of folks wanted passing. I can confirm this 100% 

​100% abandonment.  

[Haid D' Salaami]

i actually had passing. personally.

[noumpere]

I do know the actual reason R3 was called out.. abandonment.. although a bunch of folks wanted passing. I can confirm this 100% 

​It's not that surprising -- although I think they could have had "out of the baseline" and also been 100% with that call.

[johnnyg08]

i actually had passing. personally.

That surprises me

[goody14]

Off the top of my head, I am unaware of a clause in the FED rulebook similar to one added after the Brewers play...so is an out for passing in play in FED?

[maven]

Off the top of my head, I am unaware of a clause in the FED rulebook similar to one added after the Brewers play...so is an out for passing in play in FED?

By 8-2-1, runners advance by touching the bases in order until they score.

8-2-2 uses the term "returning runner," which the rules omit to define. But FED offers only 2 reasons for returning to a previous base (not counting a foul ball), and both involve correcting a baserunning error: a missed base, and a retouch.

In the play in question, R3 cannot possibly return to 2B to correct a baserunning error, since he started the play on 3B. Therefore, he cannot be a returning runner in the relevant sense. He is entitled to 3B, but nothing "behind" it, and therefore cannot legally retreat from 3B.

He can be put out by being tagged off 3B, or he can be called out for abandonment (8-4-2p) or for being out of the baseline during a tag attempt (8-4-2a). These are the same 3 options available in OBR.

With R2 going no farther than 3B, the one thing it cannot be is passing.

[noumpere]

So, for a twist -- same play, not judged to be abandonment or out of the baseline, and now R3 heads back for home, stepping over (not touching) third and scores.  Is he out if appealed at third? 

[maven]

So, for a twist -- same play, not judged to be abandonment or out of the baseline, and now R3 heads back for home, stepping over (not touching) third and scores.  Is he out if appealed at third? 

​Not if we're consistent.

[noumpere]

But, if FED has a case play where R3 must "retouch" third, does that mean that there is an out for passing?  To be consistent. 

 

Or, do we ignore the case play?

[maven]

But, if FED has a case play where R3 must "retouch" third, does that mean that there is an out for passing?  To be consistent. 

 

Or, do we ignore the case play?

 

What case play?

[noumpere]

From 2010:

 

SITUATION 9: R1, on third base, attempts to score on a squeeze play. B4 attempts to bunt, but misses the pitch and F2 comes up with the ball and gets R1 in a rundown between third and home. F2 eventually attempts to throw R1 out at third, but makes a bad throw into left field. R1 steps on third, but his momentum takes him several steps down the foul line behind third base. R1, seeing the bad throw, turns, misses third base as he advances to home. After R1 has touched home plate and enters the dugout, the defense calls “Time” and verbally appeals R1 missing third. RULING: R1 is out on the valid defensive appeal. R1 must touch third base again on his way to home plate. (8-2-1, 8-2-6c)
 

[ricka56]

That Fed case play is different from the OP in that there is no other runner touching 3B. The Fed case play does not suggest abandonment, just and over-run. In the OP, R3 does appear to abandon his attempt to run the bases (abdicates 3B to R2).

If R3 didn't abandon, but stopped after over-running 3B (with the intention of continuing to run the bases) then an out for passing would be appropriate.  I don't see any consistency issue. We just have to judge abandonment or not.

[maven]

That Fed case play is different from the OP in that there is no other runner touching 3B. The Fed case play does not suggest abandonment, just and over-run. In the OP, R3 does appear to abandon his attempt to run the bases (abdicates 3B to R2).

If R3 didn't abandon, but stopped after over-running 3B (with the intention of continuing to run the bases) then an out for passing would be appropriate.  I don't see any consistency issue. We just have to judge abandonment or not.

​That's not the point. I was arguing that R3 could not legally retreat "behind" 3B, so R2 (in the OP) could not be called out for passing when R3 seemed to run "behind" him.

noumpere then posted the (old!) case play that implies R3 CAN legally retreat behind 3B, since it states that R3 needs to touch 3B on the last time by once he has retreated or be called out on appeal. That ruling is inconsistent with my premise, which extends the principle from OBR into FED (which does not explicitly address this issue).

I acknowledge that my reasoning is not consistent with the 2010 case play; but then again, OBR had to update their rules to address this issue, and perhaps we'll see FED do the same. In the meantime, I plan to lose no sleep over this TWP.

[ricka56]

​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).

​I agree with this statement, but I disagree that the OP is a TWP...there are 2 MLB video plays that are similar. The question is, what do you call if R3 is behind 3B (to keep from being tagged), but has not abandoned (poised to resume running the bases), but R2 is standing on 3B. I think (in this sitch) there is a case for R2 out for passing.

But I think the call of least resistance is to call R3 out and leave R2 on 3B.

[noumpere]

​That's not the point. I was arguing that R3 could not legally retreat "behind" 3B, so R2 (in the OP) could not be called out for passing when R3 seemed to run "behind" him.

noumpere then posted the (old!) case play that implies R3 CAN legally retreat behind 3B, since it states that R3 needs to touch 3B on the last time by once he has retreated or be called out on appeal. That ruling is inconsistent with my premise, which extends the principle from OBR into FED (which does not explicitly address this issue).

I acknowledge that my reasoning is not consistent with the 2010 case play; but then again, OBR had to update their rules to address this issue, and perhaps we'll see FED do the same. In the meantime, I plan to lose no sleep over this TWP.

​At least you and I have the same understanding of the weird FED case play.

 

I was asked about it before it was published and used much the same argument (I think) -- since R3 can't retreat, there can't be passing, and if there can't be passing, then R3 can't be made to retouch.  The rules committee apparently didn't buy my argument.