Runner advance on fly ball out

[Vondal]

Less than 2 outs.  Runner on 1st and 3rd.  Foul ball caught out of the field of play.  Fielder’s feet and body leave field of play.  Out recorded.  Fielder immediately returns ball to infield while fielder is still out of play.  Runners did not attempt advance.  Umpire says by rule runners given advance to next base.  
How?  What rule?  I thought advance on a caught ball, even on foul ball, it was runner’s risk.  Thanks!

[noumpere]

If a fielder goes out of play after catching the ball, it's an award to the runners.

[Jay R.]

59 minutes ago, Vondal said:

 What rule? 

In MLB and youth rule codes that modify the MLB's rule set, it's Official Baseball Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C):

Quote

 

5.06(b)(3): Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when:

(C) A fielder, after catching a fly ball, steps or falls into any out-of-play area;

Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C) Comment:  If a fielder, after having made a legal catch, should step or fall into any out-of-play area, the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base, without liability to be put out, from his last legally touched base at the time the fielder entered such out-of-play area.

 

Note that the rule says "any out-of-play area" and makes no distinction of a fair or foul ball.

Same ruling in effect in all codes. If you know the base rule set being used for your game (eg, Little League, high school, or NCAA) someone can get you the rule number if you're curious.

[Richvee]

I’m sensing there’s an umpire somewhere who got a hard time from coaches /players/parents for enforcing a rule correctly. 😞

[stevis]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’m sensing there’s an umpire somewhere who got a hard time from coaches /players/parents for enforcing a rule correctly. 😞

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, Vondal said:

How?  What rule?  I thought advance on a caught ball, even on foul ball, it was runner’s risk.  Thanks!

Yes, it is.

The issue isn't that this was a caught foul ball, the issue is the fielder went out of play with the ball after making the catch*.

Once the ball goes out of play the ball/play is immediately dead - as such, the runner's right to advance at their own risk is taken from them.  The runners, by rule, are awarded the next base...not much different than if the fielder had thrown the ball out of play.

 

*your description of the play is a bit confusing.  If the fielder truly made the catch while out of play, then it's not a catch at all.  It's important to determine if the catch was made before or after the fielder left the playing area.  If they caught the ball and then carried out of play - batter out and runners advance.  If they caught the ball outside the playing area (ie. part of body touching the ground/stands/bleachers), then no catch, batter remains at bat, and runners stay on original bases.

[umpstu]

48 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Yes, it is.

The issue isn't that this was a caught foul ball, the issue is the fielder went out of play with the ball after making the catch*.

Once the ball goes out of play the ball/play is immediately dead - as such, the runner's right to advance at their own risk is taken from them.  The runners, by rule, are awarded the next base...not much different than if the fielder had thrown the ball out of play.

 

*your description of the play is a bit confusing.  If the fielder truly made the catch while out of play, then it's not a catch at all.  It's important to determine if the catch was made before or after the fielder left the playing area.  If they caught the ball and then carried out of play - batter out and runners advance.  If they caught the ball outside the playing area (ie. part of body touching the ground/stands/bleachers), then no catch, batter remains at bat, and runners stay on original bases.

I think the OP is referring to a play this weekend when Nolan Arenado made another great catch on the field and then fell into the net, both feet were off the ground when he threw the ball. Umpires got call correct and awarded the one base to R1 and R2.

[MadMax]

20 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’m sensing there’s an umpire somewhere who got a hard time from coaches /players/parents for enforcing a rule correctly. 😞

He’s outnumbered by Clarence Callsafews who have, in similar play circumstances, called nothing. 

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, MadMax said:

He’s outnumbered by Clarence Callsafews who have, in similar play circumstances, called nothing. 

It was called nothing in the MLB game. Had to go to review.

[Richvee]

40 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

It was called nothing in the MLB game. Had to go to review.

And quite possibly the origin of this thread question. 

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

It was called nothing in the MLB game. Had to go to review.

But it was something. The presence of the net changes the behavior and actions of the players. We can’t know if Arenado had managed to perch and teeter atop the fence/low-wall with his butt, or midsection, and avoid falling into the crowd (completely), had the net not been there… back when the stadium was built. But, both feet left the playing surface, the net kept him from going into the crowd (completely), and a Review Umpire deemed him OOP.  
 

What I’m referencing are those amateur games, across America, where plays like this are a lot more blatant… 

… and still nothing’s called. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

But it was something. The presence of the net changes the behavior and actions of the players. We can’t know if Arenado had managed to perch and teeter atop the fence/low-wall with his butt, or midsection, and avoid falling into the crowd (completely), had the net not been there… back when the stadium was built. But, both feet left the playing surface, the net kept him from going into the crowd (completely), and a Review Umpire deemed him OOP.  
 

What I’m referencing are those amateur games, across America, where plays like this are a lot more blatant… 

… and still nothing’s called. 

I think we can see what happened but the umpire on the field, from his vantage point, apparently could not.

I think we all know Clarence exists but citing him sometimes adds nothing to the thread.