Does the run score?

[Guest GMGM]

2 out runners at 2nd and 3rd.

Ground ball to 3rd. Runner from 3rd crosses the plate before runner from 2nd is tagged going to 3rd.

Umpire said because batter had not got to 1st base before tag, run does not score. 

[Guest TOMUIC]

Thank you BigBlue4u for realizing, (along with Senor Azul), the effort that I’ve put in to locating the rules interpreter for NCAA and getting the most up-to-date interpretation on this  situation. I truly appreciate your quoting me from an earlier  post. 
I doubt that Randy Bruns  would give the interpretation he did (via an email) if he wasn’t confident that it was not only correct, but also makes perfect sense. It is unfortunate that many on this site cannot be convinced, even while someone else does all the legwork and gets the right answer from the proper authoritative source. This is not the first time I have encountered this refusal to except an up-to-date and current rule interpretation/application.

 Thanks again!

[Guest TOMUIC]

The word is accept, sorry!

[Jimurray]

51 minutes ago, Guest TOMUIC said:

Thank you BigBlue4u for realizing, (along with Senor Azul), the effort that I’ve put in to locating the rules interpreter for NCAA and getting the most up-to-date interpretation on this  situation. I truly appreciate your quoting me from an earlier  post. 
I doubt that Randy Bruns  would give the interpretation he did (via an email) if he wasn’t confident that it was not only correct, but also makes perfect sense. It is unfortunate that many on this site cannot be convinced, even while someone else does all the legwork and gets the right answer from the proper authoritative source. This is not the first time I have encountered this refusal to except an up-to-date and current rule interpretation/application.

 Thanks again!

Who on this site do you say are unconvinced? It seems we all know that at some point in the past all three codes had the "counter-intuitive" interp of allowing a fourth out on the B-R having not advanced to 1B. Most thought it was strange and not correct but if you peruse the $100 thread the OP was told by some respected NCAA umps to call it like Paronto and the test question said. The average NCAA ump who is not on this site would only know the old interp from that test question. So hopefully NCAA will post the changed interp. 

Regarding this not being the first time some would not accept an up-to-date interp I think you are referring to one about the order of appeals. There were two threads where you made the argument that forced base appeals needed to be in the proper order as opposed to a Wendelstedt interp that order didn't matter as the force existed at the time of the miss. In those threads you already knew that the interp had changed with some communication with MLB and did not cite "the right answer from an authoritative source" until late in the discussion. One of those threads ended with me asking you this question: "So why not post that info in the original thread instead of revisiting with this thread without advising of what you already knew?"

The thread ended there with no response from you. 

[Guest TOMUIC]

When a current correct NCAA interpretation (from Randy Bruns) is responded to with “It’s not that helpful unless it ends up on the NCAA test, reversing their ruling in 2014”, the conclusion can easily be drawn that unless the test is changed, one must “go” with an eight year old answer. This approach lends itself to complacency (regarding rules) and equally important it regards the Q&A on rules tests to be 100% accurate and correct, which we all know (from experience) is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. Once again, the Bruns interpretation is what matters currently.

Finally, I am not trying to create problems, I am merely trying to solve them when possible.