Grand Slam... or is it?

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

ya  know what, ....I JUST REALIZED THAT about an hour ago! LOL!  My fault there!

My question then would be:   COULD you get 2 on this play?  Say, if there was 1 out?

You could get R2 for passing and THEN R3 for abandonment, if they happened in that order.  It would need to be clear that this was the order, though.

 

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

My question then would be:   COULD you get 2 on this play?  Say, if there was 1 out?

Yes, if you rule passing.

Another reason abandonment is better.

[Thunderheads]

Yes, if you rule passing.
Another reason abandonment is better.

So you get one out for passing and the second out would be for abandonment?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Tborze]

43 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

So you get one out for passing and the second out would be for abandonment?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Wouldn't the second need to be an appeal of R3 missing HP?  

[Thunderheads]

Wouldn't the second need to be an appeal of R3 missing HP?  

That's probably it! Thanks

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Tborze]

@Thunderheads Couldn't you get 3 outs on R2, R1 and BR for passing?  Abandonment is better!  For the offense!

 

[maven]

20 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

So you get one out for passing and the second out would be for abandonment?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

No, I'm saying that calling out R3 for abandonment is better because it does NOT yield 2 outs. 

If we call R3 out for abandonment, the other runners cannot have passed him: he's out.

If all this happens with 1 out, then the other runs should score.

1 infraction -> 1 runner out -> 1 penalty. I prefer the non-shïtty end of the stick (in general, but the other end is especially bad at this level).

[beerguy55]

On 2/15/2021 at 2:29 PM, maven said:

No, I'm saying that calling out R3 for abandonment is better because it does NOT yield 2 outs. 

If we call R3 out for abandonment, the other runners cannot have passed him: he's out.

If all this happens with 1 out, then the other runs should score.

1 infraction -> 1 runner out -> 1 penalty. I prefer the non-shïtty end of the stick (in general, but the other end is especially bad at this level).

I suppose this could also be applied if the runner simply stopped in front of the plate to wait for high fives too? Stopping in place could be seen as "abandoning his effort to touch the next base" in the right context....him taking a few steps towards the dugout makes it a bit easier to explain, but I don't think necessary.

On 2/15/2021 at 10:48 AM, Thunderheads said:

So you get one out for passing and the second out would be for abandonment?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

That would be ugly...R2 was only able to pass R3 because R3 abandoned.

If you're sticking with R2 out for passing, you could have a triple play here if it started with zero outs.

If you want to be kind, R3 abandoned and the other runs count.   But I go back to the first statement...A caused B.  R3 stopped running...he didn't get confused and go backwards, he wasn't waiting to make sure a ball wasn't caught, he didn't fall over, and he didn't get outrun by a faster following runner...R2, R1 and BR passed R3 simply because R3 stopped advancing.  That sounds (and looks) like abandonment to me.

[kylehutson]

On the other hand, if you call R2 out for passing, and you say it immediately and loud, R3 will probably think "oh ****" and go back to touch the plate.

[ArchAngel72]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:22 AM, Thunderheads said:

ya  know what, ....I JUST REALIZED THAT about an hour ago! LOL!  My fault there!

My question then would be:   COULD you get 2 on this play?  Say, if there was 1 out?

 

I would say No  1 out for  Abandonment and then the rest score properly, so long as they all run the bases and touch HB properly

 

[ArchAngel72]

23 hours ago, kylehutson said:

On the other hand, if you call R2 out for passing, and you say it immediately and loud, R3 will probably think "oh ****" and go back to touch the plate.

 

I Actually had this happen where R3 stepped over the plate and R2 came in behind him.  I called R2 out for passing the runner.

 

I was told here I should have let it go and then waited to see if there was an appeal on R3 missing the plate.

 

So in the end I think I would have let it go if there were 1 out because it is not the last out of the inning and thus needing an appeal to be called ( In this situation ) 

 

However I like the abandonment call with 2 outs because it ends the inning right at that spot. 

I forget though is abandonment a time play?

I dunno too much in my head right now waffling back and forth too and fro

[kylehutson]

4 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I was told here I should have let it go and then waited to see if there was an appeal on R3 missing the plate.

You were told correctly. Once he passes the plate, it can no longer be abandonment or passing, it's simply failure to properly touch a base. And failing to touch a base is only called an out by an appeal.

6 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

However I like the abandonment call with 2 outs because it ends the inning right at that spot. 

So does passing.

6 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I forget though is abandonment a time play?

Yes. As is passing. They are both immediate calls, and the ball stays live and in play.

The question to me is "is there an opportunity for the person at fault (not necessarily the one that was called out) to resume play". If they're hanging around the base, yes, there is, so I would call passing. If they're heading to the dugout, there isn't, so I would call abandonment.

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, kylehutson said:

You were told correctly. Once he passes the plate, it can no longer be abandonment or passing, it's simply failure to properly touch a base. And failing to touch a base is only called an out by an appeal.

So does passing.

Yes. As is passing. They are both immediate calls, and the ball stays live and in play.

The question to me is "is there an opportunity for the person at fault (not necessarily the one that was called out) to resume play". If they're hanging around the base, yes, there is, so I would call passing. If they're heading to the dugout, there isn't, so I would call abandonment.

I don't "hate" this argument, but I'll make a couple points.

In this scenario passing and abandonment offer the same result - third out, inning over, no runs score.  So it would appear to be moot.   However, you want to have a ruling that you can administer the same way if there were one or none out.

As stated previously, calling it "passing" now opens a can of worms of ruling up to three players out.

As you said, and Gil's point in his analysis (especially with it being a dead ball), R3 "could" resume his baserunning, if given the opportunity...yes.   And yes, you could differentiate between "hanging around the base" and "heading to the dugout" as a differentiator to define abandonment.   However, I think you could also use the strict wording of the rule to determine that simply stopping, turning around, cheering, waiting for high fives, etc,  is "obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base".

Passing is technically correct, and the rules support it.

The same goes for abandonment.

I think any ump is within is rights and jurisdiction to judge and call either.

And in the grand scheme of things I think abandonment makes a crappy situation a little more palatable...as opposed to giving the defense a triple play for R3's stupidity.

In an ideal world...sure, PU says immediately very loudly that R2 is out for passing, and hopefully everyone gets a clue...but I'd suggest even MLB umpires are going to take a few seconds to process what is happening, and not be able to accomplish this in real time.

[Biscuit]

I must admit, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument for abandonment. I certainly see the arguments made, and would be fine with the call, but I'm not quite sure it's correct. Regardless though, whether we get the 3rd out for passing or abandonment may actually matter. 

On a home run, all four runners are awarded home. The fact that it is an award may matter because we may have to score R3. Here's the reason why (in OBR, and would probably be persuasive in NCAA if a similar or conflicting rule does not exist in the rulebook)

"Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. 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."

Now, there are some differences between the play in question and the example play. The two that may matter are that the ball is dead, and the runner was called out for the offensive team's actions, not the defensive team's actions. However, nothing in the actual rule states anything about the ball being alive or dead, nor that the put out can only be because of the defensive team's actions (unless I am missing something about the definition of a put out, which I've briefly searched for and could not find anything to suggest that I am). 

I've asked a few people (two current and one former MiLB/current high level NCAA guys), who I trust to know the rules, but have not heard back yet. I'll update once I do. 

[JonnyCat]

13 hours ago, Biscuit said:

I must admit, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument for abandonment. I certainly see the arguments made, and would be fine with the call, but I'm not quite sure it's correct.

I'm not convinced either. I'm also not convinced about passing, as well. I can accept either ruling, but for some reason, I can't stop thinking about a missed base appeal. 

Like you said, a home run is a 4 base award. For some reason, I like a missed base appeal. I could be wrong, and probably am on this one. But I haven't entirely ruled it out either.

Interesting play and discussion for sure. 

[Replacematt]

 

17 hours ago, Biscuit said:

I must admit, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument for abandonment. I certainly see the arguments made, and would be fine with the call, but I'm not quite sure it's correct. Regardless though, whether we get the 3rd out for passing or abandonment may actually matter. 

On a home run, all four runners are awarded home. The fact that it is an award may matter because we may have to score R3. Here's the reason why (in OBR, and would probably be persuasive in NCAA if a similar or conflicting rule does not exist in the rulebook)

"Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. 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."

Now, there are some differences between the play in question and the example play. The two that may matter are that the ball is dead, and the runner was called out for the offensive team's actions, not the defensive team's actions. However, nothing in the actual rule states anything about the ball being alive or dead, nor that the put out can only be because of the defensive team's actions (unless I am missing something about the definition of a put out, which I've briefly searched for and could not find anything to suggest that I am). 

I've asked a few people (two current and one former MiLB/current high level NCAA guys), who I trust to know the rules, but have not heard back yet. I'll update once I do. 

MLBUM 36 states that a dead-ball situation does not affect how a passed-runner situation is treated. I think you're trying to expand a comment that is intended for a very specific purpose beyond its intent.

3 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I'm not convinced either. I'm also not convinced about passing, as well. I can accept either ruling, but for some reason, I can't stop thinking about a missed base appeal. 

Like you said, a home run is a 4 base award. For some reason, I like a missed base appeal. I could be wrong, and probably am on this one. But I haven't entirely ruled it out either.

Interesting play and discussion for sure. 

A runner cannot miss a base they haven't reached. 

Also: 

Quote

Rule 5.09(b)(1) and (2) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner. This rule also covers the following and similar plays: Less than two out, score tied last of ninth inning, runner on first, batter hits a ball out of park for winning run, the runner on first passes second and thinking the home run automatically wins the game, cuts across diamond toward his bench as batter-runner circles bases. In this case, the base runner would be called out “for abandoning his effort to touch the next base” and batter-runner permitted to continue around bases to make his home run valid. If there are two out, home run would not count.

That ends the discussion in my mind (for OBR.)

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

 

MLBUM 36 states that a dead-ball situation does not affect how a passed-runner situation is treated. I think you're trying to expand a comment that is intended for a very specific purpose beyond its intent.

A runner cannot miss a base they haven't reached. 

Also: 

That ends the discussion in my mind (for OBR.)

There are two bases, !B and HP, that I could envision, in certain circumstances, coming up to the base, stopping and touching and thus completing his responsibilty. What distance would he have to miss touching the base, maybe hit the black thinking he touched the base, or something as stupidly distanced as the OP, where we could say he missed the base? Can a runner miss a base they thought they reached?

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

There are two bases, !B and HP, that I could envision, in certain circumstances, coming up to the base, stopping and touching and thus completing his responsibilty. What distance would he have to miss touching the base, maybe hit the black thinking he touched the base, or something as stupidly distanced as the OP, where we could say he missed the base? Can a runner miss a base they thought they reached?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

It goes back to my calculus question. As a runner gets near a base can we say he missed it even though he didn't pass it? My and @noumperefirst impression of the play was a missed base, wait fot an appeal. Is therea cite for "A runner can not miss a base they have never reached."

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It goes back to my calculus question. As a runner gets near a base can we say he missed it even though he didn't pass it? My and @noumperefirst impression of the play was a missed base, wait fot an appeal. Is therea cite for "A runner can not miss a base they have never reached."

It is explicit in MLBUM and in the NCAA rule book (new for this year,) with identical diagrams and everything, that the position of a runner is based on the edges of the base to which they are approaching. If they do not cross the line that is defined by the edge they are approaching, they have not reached the base and are not subject to appeal (or if they pass that line without touching, they are.)

[beerguy55]

On 2/20/2021 at 9:20 PM, Biscuit said:

On a home run, all four runners are awarded home. The fact that it is an award may matter because we may have to score R3. Here's the reason why (in OBR, and would probably be persuasive in NCAA if a similar or conflicting rule does not exist in the rulebook)

"Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. 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."

Implied in the last few words - and explicitly stated elsewhere in the rulebook - R3 is still obliged to fulfill his baserunning requirements and reach/touch home plate for the run to score - whether the ball is dead or live.  Passing, abandonment and missed base appeal are all on the table, depending on exactly what happens in any strange bases loaded walk scenario, if he does not reach/touch home plate.

[Jimurray]

8 hours ago, Matt said:

It is explicit in MLBUM and in the NCAA rule book (new for this year,) with identical diagrams and everything, that the position of a runner is based on the edges of the base to which they are approaching. If they do not cross the line that is defined by the edge they are approaching, they have not reached the base and are not subject to appeal (or if they pass that line without touching, they are.)

Interestingly there is not a diagram for 1B or HP. That interp refers to passing a base. It does not define reaching a base. R3 runs home for the winning run on a base hit to the fence, stops short of the plate and stomps just short of the white thinking he touched it. Is that abandonment?  

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Interestingly there is not a diagram for 1B or HP. That interp refers to passing a base. It does not define reaching a base. R3 runs home for the winning run on a base hit to the fence, stops short of the plate and stomps just short of the white thinking he touched it. Is that abandonment?  

That diagram is universal, and it does define reaching a base.

And yes, that's abandonment. 

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Interestingly there is not a diagram for 1B or HP. That interp refers to passing a base. It does not define reaching a base. R3 runs home for the winning run on a base hit to the fence, stops short of the plate and stomps just short of the white thinking he touched it. Is that abandonment?  

I think there has to be a common sense level of judgment here...to abandon something, by definition, requires some intent...or an explicit lack of intent, if that makes sense...or, in some cases, a total diversion of attention.   Coming up a few feet short of the base, and simply forgetting your duties, is abandonment...trying to touch the base, and missing, is not - in spite of the "by the letter" interpretation of whether the runner passed/reached the base...in your question R3 obviously TRIED to touch the plate...it shouldn't matter if he fell short by an inch or overstepped by an inch....just using the wording of the rule "obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base"...he didn't abandon anything...he made an effort to touch the next base...and failed.

On a side note, using those same words, on the old BR bunts, R2 misses third base by 30 feet and scores at home, I "personally" think that's abandonment.

 

In short - there's a gap here in the rules for your specific example, between technically reaching the base, and obviously abandoning his effort...your scenario doesn't technically meet the qualifications of either...common sense should dictate this as a missed base (simply because it can't be abandonment), but I'll defer to others smarter than me.

2 hours ago, Matt said:

That diagram is universal, and it does define reaching a base.

And yes, that's abandonment. 

Which creates a potential disparity between a 1b bench and a 3b bench...R3 stops and just waits for high fives is one thing...R3 goes towards his bench in celebration...one side it's abandonment...the other side he accidentally passes the plate, and now it's appealable as a missed base?   I think it's easy to justify (and judge) abandonment in either scenario to either bench, and still call it no matter which bench R3 proceeded towards...I just suppose the ump would also be justified to allow the missed base appeal in the 1b bench scenario.

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I think there has to be a common sense level of judgment here...to abandon something, by definition, requires some intent...or an explicit lack of intent, if that makes sense...or, in some cases, a total diversion of attention.   Coming up a few feet short of the base, and simply forgetting your duties, is abandonment...trying to touch the base, and missing, is not - in spite of the "by the letter" interpretation of whether the runner passed/reached the base...in your question R3 obviously TRIED to touch the plate...it shouldn't matter if he fell short by and inch or overstepped by an inch to whether or not its abandonment....just using the wording of the rule "obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base".

On a side note, using those same words, on the old BR bunts, R2 misses third base by 30 feet and scores at home, I "personally" think that's abandonment.

 

In short - there's a gap here in the rules for your specific example, between technically reaching the base, and obviously abandoning his effort...your scenario doesn't technically meet the qualifications of either...common sense should dictate this as a missed base, but I'll defer to others smarter than me.

Which creates a potential disparity between a 1b bench and a 3b bench...R3 stops and just waits for high fives is one thing...R3 goes towards his bench in celebration...one side it's abandonment...the other side he accidentally passes the plate, and now it's appealable as a missed base?   I think it's easy to justify (and judge) abandonment in either scenario to either bench, and still call it no matter which bench R3 proceeded towards...I just suppose the ump would also be justified to allow the missed base appeal in the 1b bench scenario.

 

There's no gap in the rules. Is there a live runner? Have they left the basepath thinking there is no further play? If both are yes, that's abandonment. If not, it isn't.

And the 1st/3rd base dugout question is moot; if that determines if this is a missed base vice abandonment, so be it. RH batters have to run further to first. Sometimes there's just advantages or disadvantages to where you are on the field.

The one argument I see would expand the applicability of abandonment by applying the gross-miss concept. If a runner passes the plate while missing it by such a large amount to be considered a gross miss, I could buy an abandonment argument if that runner stops their attempt to score.