Passing the runner not immediately called

[Guest VisitingUmp]

FED rules. R1, 1 out.

B1 hits safely to outfield. R1 takes off from 1B, rounds 2B, then mistakenly believes the ball has been caught and begins to retreat by retagging 2B and heading to 1B. At this point, B1 passes R1, then both runners reverse direction to get back in the right order before any play is attempted on either. However, no call is made by either umpire so defense continues to attempt plays on both runners. After some sloppy defensive throws, R1 is thrown out sliding in to 3B and B1 is standing on 2B.

Defensive coach comes out to speak to the umpires to point out that B1 passed R1. Umpires huddle and determine that B1 is out and reaffirm that R1 is out at 3B.

Question: Do you invoke 10-2-3l and determine that the non-call for passing the runner (subsequently reversed) placed the offense at a disadvantage? Or do you determine that both outs stand because both teams were disadvantaged by the non-call?

[Cav]

6 minutes ago, Guest VisitingUmp said:

Question: Do you invoke 10-2-3l and determine that the non-call for passing the runner (subsequently reversed) placed the offense at a disadvantage? 

No.

7 minutes ago, Guest VisitingUmp said:

Question: Or do you determine that both outs stand because both teams were disadvantaged by the non-call?

No.  Both outs stand because R3 was putout at 3B with a live ball and the BR is out for passing an unobstructed preceding runner during a live ball.  

[beerguy55]

I think the call is right.

You'd have to make a really compelling argument that R1 only went to third because B1 was at second, and that going to third was hopeless.   But I think even then R1 has to have some kind of knowledge/responsibility to know that B1 should be out, and run the bases accordingly.  Likewise for the defense.  In either scenario, neither team got an advantage over the other due to the non-call.

To me this is no different than a d3k with 1b occupied, and BR runs and F2 throws the ball away.  Just because PU didn't verbalize the out doesn't mean that both teams shouldn't have known better.

[ricka56]

Of course this would never happen to me, but I would advise the umpire that let this happen to take both out...and the verbal beating from the OHC.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Guest VisitingUmp said:

Question: Do you invoke 10-2-3l and determine that the non-call for passing the runner (subsequently reversed) placed the offense at a disadvantage? Or do you determine that both outs stand because both teams were disadvantaged by the non-call?

If both teams were disadvantaged, then there's no real disadvantage, is there?

Frankly, it's not clear to me that 10-2-3l applies. That rule addresses situations where a judgment call is changed: here, it's possible that the umpires mistakenly thought that they were to call the BR out at the end of playing action rather than when the infraction occurred.

In any case, even if this is an instance where a judgment call is changed, it's an independent question whether the change put a team at a comparative disadvantage.

[roothog66]

Crazy that this is at the top of the thread. Almost the exact thing happened yesterday in the Auburn - Arkansas game. With a runner on first and one out, the Auburn batter blasted one to the left field wall. The left fielder leaped up and came down with glove closed. It looked to all concerned that he had caught the ball. R1, who was half way to second, retreated to first, momentarily passing R1 before turning back to first and continuing on. Umpire gathered and called BR out and it was scored a single and an rbi. I assume correctly, do I not, that if there had been two outs rather than one, the run would not have scored. 

[noumpere]

28 minutes ago, roothog66 said:

. I assume correctly, do I not, that if there had been two outs rather than one, the run would not have scored. 

It's a time play, and since the third out was recorded before the run scored ....