Passing a preceding runner

[jjskitours]

Bases loaded, 2 outs, B6 hits HR. He passes R1 between 1st and 2nd and is called out (3rd out). R3 was already across home and R2 was between 3rd and home. How many runs score under NF rules? Is it the same as OBR, only 1 run (time play)?

 

[grayhawk]

From the 2006 NFHS Rules Interpretations:

SITUATION 14: In the bottom of the seventh inning, the visiting team leads 6-4. With the bases loaded and two outs, the batter hits a grand slam home run over the left field fence. B6, in his excitement, passes R3, who started the play on first base. At the time B6 passed R3, only R1 had touched home plate. RULING: When a batter hits a home run, each runner on base is awarded four bases, or home. While B6 is out for passing an unobstructed preceding runner, his third out is not a force out since he had touched first base. Therefore, three runs will score and the home team will win, 7-6. (8-3-3a, 9-1-1)

It seems to me that a more recent interpretation was posted somewhere that said Fed now aligned with OBR that this is a time play, but I can't find it.

[jjskitours]

There was a Case Book play 9.1.1 Situation M that specifically affirmed that this was not a time play, but it is not in the 2019 Case Book. If you find out where NF has now aligned with OBR, let me know.

[Senor Azul]

I think the thread Mr. grayhawk was trying to find is the following—End of game situation in the Rules forum started by Mr. maven in January 2018. In it Mr. lawump told us he would let us know when he heard something definitive from NFHS. As far as I know he hasn’t done that yet.

 

 

[jjskitours]

Wow! 1-1/2 years later and still no definitive answer from NFHS??

is the general consensus that Fed now conforms with OBR and NCAA? 

[Tborze]

4 hours ago, jjskitours said:

Wow! 1-1/2 years later and still no definitive answer from NFHS??

is the general consensus that Fed now conforms with OBR and NCAA? 

Yes. 

8.4.2 SITUATION L:  

With two outs, R2 on second base and R1 on first base, B5 singles. B5 passes R1 between first and second base (a) just before R2 touches the plate or (b) just after R2 touches the plate.  

RULING: In (a), the run does not count, while in (b), it does count. A runner is called out at the moment he passes a preceding runner, but the ball remains live. Acts such as attempts of a runner to profit by running too far from the baseline to avoid a tag, or outside the three-foot lane while advancing to first, or running the bases in reverse, or other-wise making a travesty of the game may not be appealed. The umpire calls the runner out without waiting for the defensive player to call attention to the act."

That change and removal of 9.1.1M, confirms that FED is now with the other codes in making this a time play.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Tborze
Apologies for the font. I copied n pasted from notes. This was sent in response to the ruling in the OP by someone at the state level. When I sent it I saw the font and was going to delete it but got a phone call and forgot.

[maven]

I'm not sure what the large font aims to achieve, but 8.4.2L is not new and not relevant (indeed, is doubly irrelevant).

The issue, as I stated in the other thread is "the conflict between calling this a time play, which shouldn't occur during a dead ball, and the dead-ball awards after a HR, which shouldn't count after the 3rd out."

In order to have that conflict, you need both a dead ball and an award. 8.4.2L lacks BOTH: the batter singled and made the third out during a live ball. So of course that's a garden-variety time play.

By removing the old case play, FED has deleted all authoritative ground for asserting a rule difference (*squints so as not to see the 2006 play*). So we can revert to assuming conformity with OBR, which is fine.

But we should recognize that the concept of a time play is premised on time mattering to the play: it's a race between offense and defense as to who will win in the moment. If the runner scores before the third out, then count it; if not, then don't. Extending that concept to a dead-ball situation where the offense beats itself is just that: an extension.

[lawump]

On 7/1/2019 at 10:37 AM, maven said:

By removing the old case play, FED has deleted all authoritative ground for asserting a rule difference (*squints so as not to see the 2006 play*). So we can revert to assuming conformity with OBR, which is fine.

As a general practice, I do not subscribe to a theory of NFHS rule interpretation which holds that a rule (or, more correctly, a rule interpretation) is changed merely because a casebook play is removed from the casebook.  Sometimes, this simply occurs because of cost limitations (the number of pages they can actually print while being able to stay within the NFHS budget for that specific publication).  Sometimes, a play which has existed for years in the casebook is simply removed to make room for new casebook play(s) which must go in the casebook to explain a new rule change.  Often, the intent is to republish the removed casebook play in future editions of the casebook.

I would subscribe to a theory which holds that a casebook play from prior years is still valid unless it has been specifically and expressly changed either by the publication of a new rule, a new casebook play, or a new case play in the pre-season guide or on the NFHS website during the season.

[lawump]

3.3.1 SITUATION FF: 

With two outs and the bases loaded, B6 hits a home run out of the park. R1 maliciously runs over (a) F4 before touching second base or (b) F5 before touching third. 

RULING: In both (a) and (b), R1 is declared out and ejected. In (a), the third out is a force, so no runs score. In (b), the third out was not a force play, so runners who have touched the plate prior to the infraction would score. Please note that in awarded situations it is not the base that is awarded, but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made.

The above is from the NFHS website (accessed through Arbiter).  Obviously, this casebook play is not directly on point.  However, I think the explanation in the ruling applies to all home runs.  I believe the explanation in this casebook play indicates that it is now a time play as to whether or not the other runners score in the OP.  

[grayhawk]

26 minutes ago, lawump said:

3.3.1 SITUATION FF: 

With two outs and the bases loaded, B6 hits a home run out of the park. R1 maliciously runs over (a) F4 before touching second base or (b) F5 before touching third. 

RULING: In both (a) and (b), R1 is declared out and ejected. In (a), the third out is a force, so no runs score. In (b), the third out was not a force play, so runners who have touched the plate prior to the infraction would score. Please note that in awarded situations it is not the base that is awarded, but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made.

The above is from the NFHS website (accessed through Arbiter).  Obviously, this casebook play is not directly on point.  However, I think the explanation in the ruling applies to all home runs.  I believe the explanation in this casebook play indicates that it is now a time play as to whether or not the other runners score in the OP.  

That's the one that I couldn't find.  Didn't think to look in rule 3 for it.  Thanks - I believe that provides the definitive interpretation for the OP.

[beerguy55]

On 7/1/2019 at 8:37 AM, maven said:

But we should recognize that the concept of a time play is premised on time mattering to the play: it's a race between offense and defense as to who will win in the moment. If the runner scores before the third out, then count it; if not, then don't. Extending that concept to a dead-ball situation where the offense beats itself is just that: an extension

I think this is the most logical and practical application and interpretation of the rules, and I think the rule makers in determining that this should be a time play even in a dead ball situation have kind of out-thunk and outsmarted themselves.

They have also, IMO, created a conflict with the OBR ruling that on a two out bases loaded BB (yes, I know, live) where R2 goes past third and is tagged out before R3 touches home the run still counts because "Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base."   

If the runner is assumed to have achieved the awarded base on a live ball, regardless of the timing of the third out, why wouldn't the same assumption apply on a dead ball?

Otherwise, you start getting into weirdness where, on a bases loaded home run, R3 would be given home (on the theory the run was forced home and he just had to touch the next base), even if BR passed R1 before R3 touched...but R2 would not.

[Senor Azul]

The case play that Mr. lawump posted as the definitive answer is not new. It appeared in both the 2015 and 2016 case books as 3.3.1 Situation AA. Both times this case play was listed under the heading of Malicious Contact (same as now).

I do not have a 2017 NFHS Case Book (or any older than 2015) but the case play AA had become 3.3.1 Situation FF in the 2018 edition. And it remains Situation FF in the 2019 edition.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I think this is the most logical and practical application and interpretation of the rules, and I think the rule makers in determining that this should be a time play even in a dead ball situation have kind of out-thunk and outsmarted themselves.

They have also, IMO, created a conflict with the OBR ruling that on a two out bases loaded BB (yes, I know, live) where R2 goes past third and is tagged out before R3 touches home the run still counts because "Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base."   

If the runner is assumed to have achieved the awarded base on a live ball, regardless of the timing of the third out, why wouldn't the same assumption apply on a dead ball?

Otherwise, you start getting into weirdness where, on a bases loaded home run, R3 would be given home (on the theory the run was forced home and he just had to touch the next base), even if BR passed R1 before R3 touched...but R2 would not.

There's a difference between "the defense putting a runner out" (the walk/out after third play) and "the offense committing a baserunning violation that results in an out" (the passing / MC plays).

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

There's a difference between "the defense putting a runner out" (the walk/out after third play) and "the offense committing a baserunning violation that results in an out" (the passing / MC plays).

I could buy that, but in light of that, if one would want to make them different it appears to me that things are backwards.   The defense should be "rewarded" for causing a third out, on a live play, before R3 touched home.   Beyond that, being a live play the concept of "time" should take precedent. The problem is a defense can't put a runner out during a dead ball.  Both methods can occur during a live ball.   So is the difference really about who causes the third out, or whether or not the ball is dead when the third out occurs?

It then begs the question (for me anyway) - what would happen in that bases load BB scenario if, instead of the example cited of R2 being tagged,  we had R1 pass R2 before R3 touched home?  Will it be treated differently because the offense caused the out?  That would contradict the statement made about "run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base."    I believe the OBR scenario is meant to cover ANY method in which the third out is made before R3 touches - whether it's B/R rounds first and is tagged, or B/R gets confused and passes R1.

Or,  in a bases loaded HBP scenario, if, for example, R1 did something really stupid and passed R2, before R3 touched.   Would one follow the OBR bases loaded live BB "defense caused out" approach, or the dead ball home run "offense caused out" approach?

I see these scenarios that seem to be at play:

live ball award - defense puts runner out

live ball award - offense gets themselves out

dead ball award - offense gets themselves out

Now, what I think is different is the only time home is awarded during a live ball is a bases loaded walk - all other awards of home are dead ball awards??  And I think, technically, on a bases loaded BB/HBP R3 isn't "awarded" home, he is forced home by the batter's award.   But those differences lead me to believe that the run should NOT count in the scenario where OBR has concluded it should.   So, I wonder if there's a method to their madness, or did someone accidentally out-think themselves with this ruling.  The OBR bases loaded BB ruling just doesn't seem to fit in with anything else.

To me, either awarded bases are assumed to be achieved (for timing purposes), and the umps/players simply need to see if the awards are completed legally...or they are achieved when they are achieved (ie. touched/passed) and all timing follows.   Or, perhaps, the first for dead ball and the second for live ball.   HOW the third out was made should be irrelevant (forces aside).

[Senor Azul]

Mr. lawump, on January 22, 2018, you posted the following--

I have not gotten involved in this thread (beyond this post) because i have sent a formal request to Indianapolis for a rules interpretation on the case play in OP...since it has apparently blown up Facebook, and I have received about 10 emails on this one play from around the country, including from my own South Carolina umpires.

I'll post the official response when I receive it.

In the current thread started by jjskitours, he posted the following comment/question which you really didn’t address—

Wow! 1-1/2 years later and still no definitive answer from NFHS??

So, did you ever receive a response to your formal request from the FED? If you did receive a response, was it that the current case play 3.3.1 FF was the new interpretation even though that play is definitely not new itself? If you did not receive a response, why not and how did we arrive at this play (3.3.1 FF)?

 

[lawump]

6 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

So, did you ever receive a response to your formal request from the FED? 

 

No.

[Senor Azul]

With Mr. lawump’s monosyllabic confirmation that he never received an official response to his rule interpretation request from the FED, aren’t we back to where we started? His explanation of why sometimes a case play is deleted from the case book makes sense to me so we probably should not jump to conclusions based on that alone.

So his suggestion that we consider case play 3.3.1 Situation FF as the new interpretation remains just that—a suggestion. Even though it does seem to answer our original question, that case play is certainly not a new one--in fact, it was in the NFHS case book in 2015 and possibly earlier than that. In the 2016 BRD Carl Childress indicated that the old case play from 2006 was still valid. So don’t we still have a conflict?

[lawump]

I requested that my state request an official interpretation because these case plays are actually discussed in our association's study guide (and I'm working on the 2020 updates to that guide).  

I asked my state to submit the following question to the NFHS:  

On the following play, are R1 and R2 allowed to score because B5’s “out” for passing R1 is not a force out?  Or, is this a time play where R2 and R1’s runs only count if they touched home before B5 passed R1?   

PLAY:  R2 & R1, two outs.  B5 hits a home run (out of the park).  While running the bases, B5 touches first base and then passes R1.

Here is why I am asking this question:  The above-play was in the casebook for years as play 9.1.1 Situation M, but was removed in 2016 (I believe).  That casebook play held that R2 and R1 were allowed to score.   Then, in addition to 9.1.1. Situation M being removed from the casebook in 2016, a new case play was added (3.3.1 Situation FF).  As set forth in the 2019 casebook, that case play does not have the same facts as the old 9.1.1 Situation M, but its holding in part (b) (stating that a time play exists) seems to directly contradict the old 9.1.1 Situation M holding.

I know that just because a specific play was removed from the casebook, does not mean that the removed play’s interpretation is no longer valid.  Sometimes, a play is removed from the casebook simply due to page constraints and not because the interpretation is no longer valid.  (The NFHS has only so many pages it can publish in the casebook).

So, in short, my question is: if there are multiple runners on base with two outs and the batter hits a home run, are the other runners allowed to score if the batter is called out (after having touched first base) for some reason (such as passing a preceding runner, or committing malicious contact)?  It is appears to me that there is a conflict between Casebook Play 9.1.1 Situation M (which was in the casebook for years through 2015) and the 2019 casebook play 3.3.1 Situation FF.  And, since the NFHS has never explicitly stated that 9.1.1 Situation M is no longer valid (it only removed it from the casebook), it does not appear to me that the conflict between these two plays has been resolved.

[lawump]

Just now, lawump said:

I requested that my state request an official interpretation because these case plays are actually discussed in our association's study guide (and I'm working on the 2020 updates to that guide).  

I asked my state to submit the following question to the NFHS:  

On the following play, are R1 and R2 allowed to score because B5’s “out” for passing R1 is not a force out?  Or, is this a time play where R2 and R1’s runs only count if they touched home before B5 passed R1?   

PLAY:  R2 & R1, two outs.  B5 hits a home run (out of the park).  While running the bases, B5 touches first base and then passes R1.

Here is why I am asking this question:  The above-play was in the casebook for years as play 9.1.1 Situation M, but was removed in 2016 (I believe).  That casebook play held that R2 and R1 were allowed to score.   Then, in addition to 9.1.1. Situation M being removed from the casebook in 2016, a new case play was added (3.3.1 Situation FF).  As set forth in the 2019 casebook, that case play does not have the same facts as the old 9.1.1 Situation M, but its holding in part (b) (stating that a time play exists) seems to directly contradict the old 9.1.1 Situation M holding.

I know that just because a specific play was removed from the casebook, does not mean that the removed play’s interpretation is no longer valid.  Sometimes, a play is removed from the casebook simply due to page constraints and not because the interpretation is no longer valid.  (The NFHS has only so many pages it can publish in the casebook).

So, in short, my question is: if there are multiple runners on base with two outs and the batter hits a home run, are the other runners allowed to score if the batter is called out (after having touched first base) for some reason (such as passing a preceding runner, or committing malicious contact)?  It is appears to me that there is a conflict between Casebook Play 9.1.1 Situation M (which was in the casebook for years through 2015) and the 2019 casebook play 3.3.1 Situation FF.  And, since the NFHS has never explicitly stated that 9.1.1 Situation M is no longer valid (it only removed it from the casebook), it does not appear to me that the conflict between these two plays has been resolved.

The NFHS has replied that the play in my question is a "timing play".  That's the official interpretation given to South Carolina by the NFHS.  You can check with your own state's rules interpreter to see if this interpretation applies in your state.

[maven]

Did they really say "timing play?" Doesn't that disqualify the witness?

[Aging_Arbiter]

OBJECTION!

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, lawump said:

I know that just because a specific play was removed from the casebook, does not mean that the removed play’s interpretation is no longer valid.  Sometimes, a play is removed from the casebook simply due to page constraints and not because the interpretation is no longer valid.  (The NFHS has only so many pages it can publish in the casebook).

I could easily find a few dozen case plays that are A LOT less important than one like this.

[lawump]

18 hours ago, maven said:

Did they really say "timing play?" Doesn't that disqualify the witness?

Yes and yes...but we're still going to go with it.

[jonathantullos]

From the 2020 Case Book:

Quote

9.1.1 Situation K: With the bases loaded and one out, B5 hits a home run out of the park. While advancing to second base, B5 passes R1 (force is removed) and B5 is declared out. R1 fails to touch second base, but touches third base on his way home. RULING: For missing a base or leaving the umpire will declare the runner out upon proper appea. R3 and R2 score, because R1's out was not a force out for the third out (8.2 penalty).

Even though it's not stated outright, I'm led to believe that it's not a time play since R1's out was not a force out. 

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

From the 2020 Case Book:

Even though it's not stated outright, I'm led to believe that it's not a time play since R1's out was not a force out. 

FIFY.

 

And., it's pretty clearly stated.