The Merry-Go-Round Breaks Into Mayhem

[MadMax]

R1, R2, 1 out. OT has been running the bases like a merry-go-round for the past inning, and has racked up 5 runs. 1B to 3B, 2B to plate, the works.

Towering fly ball to F8. Flat sky, so nearly everybody loses sight of it (this umpire, as PU, included), but figure it has to be somewhere towards centerfield. R2 figures that, based on F8's previous body of botched catch attempts work, he'll take his chances and reaches 3B and rounds it towards HP. R1 follows suit, and is nearly to 2B when F8 actually... holy crap how'd he find it?... catches it. "Catch!" voices my BU.

Now panic ensues. R1 taps on R2 (never breaks the plane of it, just touches on the front edge), then retreats to 1B in a mad dash while F8 throws a... oh no... pond-skipper to F3, who can't field it cleanly and can't secure it before R1 arrives at 1B, touches it, then at the pleading of his coaches and fans heads to 2B (it turns out, these pleas and promptings were to R2 to return to 2B). While this is going on, R2 suddenly figures out he has to head back and tag up, so retouches 3B, and heads back towards 2B. F3 now throws to 2B, but R1 has already "safely" arrived there, and is sitting on it after sliding into it. F6 catches throw with his foot on the bag, and then tags R1.

Who is (technically) out?

FWIW, we called R2 out on the touch of 2B by F6 in possession of the ball. I made a point of saying, "That (point at) runner is out!" Was there an out sooner that we missed? Is R2 the one who is the third out or is R1 the third out?

[udbrky]

R2 out on appeal.

 

R1 can now legally be on 2B, since R2 is retired. If he tags R1, then touches 2B before R2 returns, then triple play.

 

Now since there's already 1 out, then R2 is retired on the appeal (8-3-4) So just R2 is retired for the 3rd out and R1 can sit there until someone brings his glove and hat out to take his position.

 

Also, if he's blocking 2B and F4 cannot get to it, that's interference.

[Stk004]

I disagree. From what I've read, F3/F6 had no intent to retire R2 on appeal. If R1 was tagged while R2 was off the base, he's safe for the time being. Now, if F6 looks at BU and says "he didn't tag up" or something similar, then call R2 out. If no such statement is made and now we have R2 and R1 on 2B, and R1 is tagged, R1 is out. Force plays can be accidental, appeals cannot. 

[maven]

Sounds to me as if F6 is in position to double off (appeal) R2. When he catches the ball with his foot on the base, that act is unmistakable enough for me (especially if the defense is hollering about doubling off R2). R2 is out.

Having retouched, R1 is just a runner between bases. If he slides in ahead of the tag, then he's safe. There are no force plays to be had here — the batter was retired on the fly ball to F8 — so R1 would have to be tagged.

It's true that R2 is entitled to 2B, but he's not on it, R1 is. Had R2 not been doubled off and returned safely to 2B with R1 sitting on the base, and had both runners touching 2B been tagged, R1 would be out.

[udbrky]

So R2 is considered as having acquired 3b? So R1 can legally obtain 2B?

[Richvee]

22 minutes ago, udbrky said:

So R2 is considered as having acquired 3b? So R1 can legally obtain 2B?

There's no force play here so R2 does not have to acquire 3rd for R1 to be safe at 2B. R1 can stand on 2B and not be liable to be put out unless/until R2 comes back and stands on 2B at the same time as R1. Then and only then is R1 liable to be tagged out while on 2B.

[maven]

7 hours ago, udbrky said:

So R2 is considered as having acquired 3b? So R1 can legally obtain 2B?

I think you might be running together "legally entitled" and "not liable to be put out."

Ordinarily, a runner touching a base is not liable to be put out. The concept of "legally entitled" comes into play only when we have 2 runners on one base (or on a force play, which is not relevant here). At that point, the one who is legally entitled to the base is the one who is not liable to be put out. Until then, all we have is a runner on a base.

I guess I just repeated Richvee. Oh well — good post, Rich!

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, Richvee said:

There's no force play here so R2 does not have to acquire 3rd for R1 to be safe at 2B.

Even if it was a force play, R2 does not have to acquire 3rd for R1 to be safe at second.

 

To udbrky: The prohibition on two runners occupying a base is only when, well, two runners are occupying a base.  If only one runner is on a base (unless he's forced to leave that base), he's safe when tagged.

To the OP:  It's a HTBT.  I can read your post as "this was an appeal" and R2 is out (as maven did).  Or, I can read it as "the play was on R1 and not on R2" so r2 is not out on appeal.  In this case, it's play on -- I don't read where the defense tagged R1 while both R1 and R2 were on second.

[conbo61]

I am trending toward the take of @Stk004 where the defense has to clearly state which runner they are appealing.  So as I view it:

1. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R1 - R1 safe; R2 in limbo pending appeal.
2. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R2 for leaving early R2 out, R1 safe
3. R2 on 2B, R1 not on 2B , appeal R2 - R2 safe; R1 in limbo (runner between bases)
4. R2 on 2B, R1 on 2B , keeping my mouth shut until they declare which runner they are appealing.

Now to situation 1.  R1 on 2B, R2 still "arriving."  DT appeals R1, ruling is safe, however R2 continues back 2B and touches.  What now?  By R1 acquiring 2B and reaching it safely, does that require R2 to advance to 3B ?

[noumpere]

12 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

I am trending toward the take of @Stk004 where the defense has to clearly state which runner they are appealing.  So as I view it:

1. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R1 - R1 safe; R2 in limbo pending appeal.
2. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R2 for leaving early R2 out, R1 safe
3. R2 on 2B, R1 not on 2B , appeal R2 - R2 safe; R1 in limbo (runner between bases)
4. R2 on 2B, R1 on 2B , keeping my mouth shut until they declare which runner they are appealing.

Now to situation 1.  R1 on 2B, R2 still "arriving."  DT appeals R1, ruling is safe, however R2 continues back 2B and touches.  What now?  By R1 acquiring 2B and reaching it safely, does that require R2 to advance to 3B ?

First, there's no need to "clearly state which runner they are appealing."  It only needs to be obvious (and most of the time it is).

second, there's no appeal on R1.  Any play on him at second is an attempt to retire him in the course of normal baserunning.

third, R1 is not forced to second, so R2 is not forced to leave second to go to third.  So, "what now?" -- wait and see what happens.  If the defense again tags R1, then R1 is out (the base "belongs to" R2) -- that's essentially your play 4..

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, conbo61 said:

I am trending toward the take of @Stk004 where the defense has to clearly state which runner they are appealing.  So as I view it:

1. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R1 - R1 safe; R2 in limbo pending appeal.
2. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R2 for leaving early R2 out, R1 safe
3. R2 on 2B, R1 not on 2B , appeal R2 - R2 safe; R1 in limbo (runner between bases)
4. R2 on 2B, R1 on 2B , keeping my mouth shut until they declare which runner they are appealing.

Now to situation 1.  R1 on 2B, R2 still "arriving."  DT appeals R1, ruling is safe, however R2 continues back 2B and touches.  What now?  By R1 acquiring 2B and reaching it safely, does that require R2 to advance to 3B ?

 

1 hour ago, conbo61 said:

I am trending toward the take of @Stk004 where the defense has to clearly state which runner they are appealing.  So as I view it:

1. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R1 - R1 safe; R2 in limbo pending appeal.
2. R2 returning to 2B, R1 on 2B, appeal of R2 for leaving early R2 out, R1 safe
3. R2 on 2B, R1 not on 2B , appeal R2 - R2 safe; R1 in limbo (runner between bases)
4. R2 on 2B, R1 on 2B , keeping my mouth shut until they declare which runner they are appealing.

Now to situation 1.  R1 on 2B, R2 still "arriving."  DT appeals R1, ruling is safe, however R2 continues back 2B and touches.  What now?  By R1 acquiring 2B and reaching it safely, does that require R2 to advance to 3B ?

Damn this site and it's stupid quoting assumptions.

In any event:  Ball was caught. Runner is madly returning to his base. Defense appeals at the base.  Obvious to me.. 

 

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

Even if it was a force play, R2 does not have to acquire 3rd for R1 to be safe at second.

 

.

Yep. For some reason I was thinking legal right to the bag, which  doesn't come into play unless we have 2 runners on the bag. 

[udbrky]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Yep. For some reason I was thinking legal right to the bag, which  doesn't come into play unless we have 2 runners on the bag. 

me too

[udbrky]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

There's no force play here so R2 does not have to acquire 3rd for R1 to be safe at 2B. R1 can stand on 2B and not be liable to be put out unless/until R2 comes back and stands on 2B at the same time as R1. Then and only then is R1 liable to be tagged out while on 2B.

I'm still wrestling with this.

 

Let's say R2 & R3, ground ball, R3 gets into rundown, R2 is at 3B. R2 cannot legally hold 3B and there is no force out. They don't both have to be standing on the bag, right? I don't remember ever seeing a situation where they tag R2 when both runners aren't there, but if they were to tag R2 with R3 3 steps from 3B and then tag R3 before he gets back to the bag, that's a double play, right?

[maven]

7 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Let's say R2 & R3, ground ball, R3 gets into rundown, R2 is at 3B. R2 cannot legally hold 3B and there is no force out. They don't both have to be standing on the bag, right? I don't remember ever seeing a situation where they tag R2 when both runners aren't there, but if they were to tag R2 with R3 3 steps from 3B and then tag R3 before he gets back to the bag, that's a double play, right?

No, not a double play.

How about some rules? Here's 5.06(a)(2):

"Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out when tagged and the preceding runner is entitled to the base, unless Rule 5.06(d) (Rule 7.03(b)) applies."

And here's 5.09(b)(4):

"A runner is out when: He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base."

So my view is, since R2 is (alone) on 3B, he is not out when tagged. He fails to satisfy the condition of 5.09(b)(4) that would make him liable to be tagged out. What rule do you have that supports ruling a double play in this case?

[udbrky]

My thinking is that R2 has not acquired 3B, so he is still legally entitled to, and can retreat to, 2B. R1 cannot legally acquire 2B since R2 has not advanced to 3B.

[Richvee]

I'm still wrestling with this.

 

Let's say R2 & R3, ground ball, R3 gets into rundown, R2 is at 3B. R2 cannot legally hold 3B and there is no force out. They don't both have to be standing on the bag, right? I don't remember ever seeing a situation where they tag R2 when both runners aren't there, but if they were to tag R2 with R3 3 steps from 3B and then tag R3 before he gets back to the bag, that's a double play, right?

No. R2 is not liable to be put out if he's the only one standing on 3B. Only if/When R3 retreats and both are standing on 3B is R2 liable to be put out if tagged while on the base.

Perhaps you're confusing it with a force play when the forced runner doesn't run. Ex. R1. GB to F3 R1 doesn't move off 1B. He can be tagged out while in contact with 1B. He's forced to vacate it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[udbrky]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

No. R2 is not liable to be put out if he's the only one standing on 3B. Only if/When R3 retreats and both are standing on 3B is R2 liable to be put out if tagged while on the base.

Perhaps you're confusing it with a force play when the forced runner doesn't run. Ex. R1. GB to F3 R1 doesn't move off 1B. He can be tagged out while in contact with 1B. He's forced to vacate it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, thanks, I wanted to correct any way I was looking at it wrong.

[noumpere]

19 hours ago, udbrky said:

My thinking is that R2 has not acquired 3B, so he is still legally entitled to, and can retreat to, 2B. R1 cannot legally acquire 2B since R2 has not advanced to 3B.

You're right that he can't legally acquire third.  That doesn't mean he can't "temporarily occupy" it, and he's safe if tagged.

 

I think you might be confusing this with the R2, R3, Re3 gets in a rundown, R2 advances to third, R3 interferes.  Here, R2 is returned to second.  That, however, is a different play from the one being discussed, and, thus, a different ruling.

[beerguy55]

I'm just a coach, so I'm see this as a great learning opportunity.

My take is - R1 is allowed safe haven on 2B unless and until R2 returns to 2B safely and both runners are on the base at the same time.  

The only way I see R1 out on this play is if the umpire rules that F6's appeal is accidental - ie. he just happened to be touching 2b when he caught the ball, rather than obviously intending to catch the ball with his foot on the bag.

If there had been zero out, I can't see any scenario where there is a triple play as long as R1 doesn't leave the base.

If the umpire rules that R1 interfered with F6's ability to catch the throw, is R1 out or R2?

[noumpere]

16 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

If the umpire rules that R1 interfered with F6's ability to catch the throw, is R1 out or R2?

The runner who interferes is out (always?), unless he's already out.

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

The runner who interferes is out (always?), unless he's already out.

So, if there had been zero out, R1 is out for interference, is the play killed, or is R2 out if F6 still manages to complete the appeal play?

[maven]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

So, if there had been zero out, R1 is out for interference, is the play killed, or is R2 out if F6 still manages to complete the appeal play?

The ball is dead immediately for runner INT. The rule set is not specified: in FED, the defense may make a dead-ball appeal once action ceases (which it will because the ball is dead). In any other code not using dead-ball appeals, the ball must be made live before the defense can appeal. They do not lose the right to appeal because of the INT or the ball becoming dead.

[noumpere]

Just now, maven said:

The ball is dead immediately for runner INT. The rule set is not specified: in FED, the defense may make a dead-ball appeal once action ceases (which it will because the ball is dead). In any other code not using dead-ball appeals, the ball must be made live before the defense can appeal. They do not lose the right to appeal because of the INT or the ball becoming dead.

Agreed -- but runners return to the last base as part of the INT, so in a practical sense R2 will return to second and any appeal chance will be lost.