Bizarre

[Stk004]

Ok guys forgive me if this has been discussed before because it is a very old video. 

With that said, I was muddling through YouTube and stumbled across this. Assuming these guys stuck with their call, I think they got it wrong. Thoughts? 

 

[Thunderheads]

2 things ...

1) .... from what I've been taught, ....and read, .....I don't have R3 out of the baseline, there was no play or tag being made on him ....

2) ....why is Geren arguing?  Did they not get 2 outs on the play?

[JaxRolo]

I think R3 was out because he passed the runner.

[JSam21]

40 minutes ago, JaxRolo said:

I think R3 was out because he passed the runner.

No... the trail runner was out on the tag... I'm guessing they are calling abandonment on the lead

[ALStripes17]

I would have had no outs on this play...

No abandonment, no passing runners (how can R3 retreat towards 2B when he started the play at 3B and the following runner never advanced past 3B?), and the tag of the following runner was after R3 vacated the base (towards HP) again.

Edit to add: the only out I MAY have would be tagging R3 while (if) he is off the base

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[zoops]

3 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I would have had no outs on this play...

And at least one ejection...

[maven]

3 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I would have had no outs on this play...

No abandonment, no passing runners (how can R3 retreat towards 2B when he started the play at 3B and the following runner never advanced past 3B?), and the tag of the following runner was after R3 vacated the base (towards HP) again.

R2 seems to have been tagged when R3 was also touching the base. R2 is not entitled to the base, so he's out.

R2 could also be ruled out for passing R3, once R3 retreats. There was a (recent — possibly more recent than this clip) pro interp about this kind of play, where R2 "filled in behind" R3 who was in a rundown, and R3 ran back behind 3B (into LF). R2 was ruled out for passing R3, even though R3 couldn't legally retreat.

I have no idea why R3 is out.

Maybe R2 was out twice.

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, maven said:

R2 seems to have been tagged when R3 was also touching the base. R2 is not entitled to the base, so he's out.

R2 could also be ruled out for passing R3, once R3 retreats. There was a pro interp about this kind of play, where R2 "filled in behind" R3 who was in a rundown, and R3 ran back behind 3B (into LF). R2 was ruled out for passing R3, even though R3 couldn't legally retreat.

I have no idea why R3 is out.

Maybe R2 was out twice.

I'm fairly confident R3 was off of 3B when R1 was tagged. 

As far as R1 passing R3, I could see that. 

[ALStripes17]

R2 seems to have been tagged when R3 was also touching the base. R2 is not entitled to the base, so he's out.

R2 could also be ruled out for passing R3, once R3 retreats. There was a (recent — possibly more recent than this clip) pro interp about this kind of play, where R2 "filled in behind" R3 who was in a rundown, and R3 ran back behind 3B (into LF). R2 was ruled out for passing R3, even though R3 couldn't legally retreat.

I have no idea why R3 is out.

Maybe R2 was out twice.

I do not see where you have a tag on R2 while R3 is touching 3B.

We discussed that interp on here at some point and IIRC there was some diagram in PBUC that explained some of that?

I see the potential to get abandonment on R3 bc one could gather that he has given up his base running assignment when he U-turns to HP but that is a tough abandonment call while he is still within steps of any baseline.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Lindsay]

This is an ejection, so we obviously had a look at this when it occurred in 2010.

In sum, R3 was tagged while he was off of his base, after which R1 was tagged. There is no base path consideration to make, as R3 was already put out. Similarly, there is no passing consideration, as R3 was tagged immediately after he stepped off of third base. Thus, R1 is safe, R3 is out.

(Ejections: Gary Darling (3)).

[Stk004]

3 minutes ago, Gil said:

This is an ejection, so we obviously had a look at this when it occurred in 2010.

In sum, R3 was tagged while he was off of his base, after which R1 was tagged. There is no base path consideration to make, as R3 was already put out. Similarly, there is no passing consideration, as R3 was tagged immediately after he stepped off of third base. Thus, R1 is safe, R3 is out.

(Ejections: Gary Darling (3)).

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Signaling by the crew was confusing to the casual bystander but that explains why Oakland's manager got run. Thanks Gil! 

[JaxRolo]

R2 seems to have been tagged when R3 was also touching the base. R2 is not entitled to the base, so he's out.

R2 could also be ruled out for passing R3, once R3 retreats. There was a (recent — possibly more recent than this clip) pro interp about this kind of play, where R2 "filled in behind" R3 who was in a rundown, and R3 ran back behind 3B (into LF). R2 was ruled out for passing R3, even though R3 couldn't legally retreat.

I have no idea why R3 is out.

Maybe R2 was out twice.

Exactly what I meant with my comment.

[MadMax]

So Geren got tossed for arguing (beyond reason) for not getting a second out on the play... right?

Whoever was U3 (sleeve #29) got his call wrong by missing the tag of Mitch Meyer (R3) and pointing at the tag of Yuniesky Betancourt (R1) who was, at that time, standing (safely, once R3 was tagged) on 3B. U3 points at the tag action of R1 and makes the out indication. Meyer (no longer R3) is recovering through the infield and at some prompting, makes a dash for the plate. PU has to rule on what he sees in front of him, and rules Meyer out of the baseline and therefore Out. But, he's already out. I guess after discussing it (because the score didn't change, which it would have had Meyer not been ruled out), Betancourt was deemed to have been safe at 3B. Geren likely pressed that U3 had indicated Betancourt was out, but now ruled safe.