Runners Passing

[Velho]

In the Muncy fly ball DP I’m seeing an argument that BR Muncy should have been called out for Passing R1 because he touched 1B and never retouched it before R1 did on his return. Meaning, since R1 retouched 1B before BR did, BR is beyond R1 by definition.

Or is it measured by who is closer to 2B (as we normally see passing)? Because on this play BR was always closer to the RF foul line than R1. See picture attached. [even if he wasn’t, for sake of argument let’s assume he was and the picture is as close as they got to being nearer 2B than each other]  

Hopefully I’ve said that well enough to delineate the two choices to  determine passing:

Closer to 2B is the beyond runner, or 

Second person to double touch 1B is the beyond runner

OBR 5.09(b)(9) simply says “passes a preceding runner”.   I can’t find anything of note in MLBUM or JR.  

 

 

 

[BLWizzRanger]

Ok, I will bite because this is a good catch and interesting situation. Ready to get educated, I must say. But, could you imagine the crap show that would have went on if U1 ruled that the BR passed R1, therefore, the force was erased, thereby scoring the run? 

roughly at the 7:55 min mark.

But, technically, I think you could rule (they ruled if the umps thought about it) that they were both standing on the same base or standing at the same point and not crossing. Watching the video, The BR crosses first and goes 10 feet (?) into fair territory and back tracks when he sees the R1 returning.  The BR is standing within 18 inches (base width) of the baseline when the R1 slides into first. I don't see the R1's center of gravity across the base boundary, therefore, he didn't return pass the BR. Since the BR and R1 are on the same side of the base boundary, the linear distance is longer between the BR to second than the R1 to second. 

All of the action happened at the wall and home plate. No one was thinking about first base. (plus passing the runner isn't reviewable).

 

  

[Velho]

31 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Ok, I will bite because this is a good catch and interesting situation.

Yeah, putting the actual play aside (and also putting aside the sh**show from making a passing call on this), I'm interested in the rule application.

Revisiting the argument and discussing it elsewhere, it hinges on BR making an advance attempt. The working theory (as I can figure, in my words) is this:

- If BR ran through 1B with no advance attempt, no passing is in play.

- If BR advanced (colloquially "rounded first"), then being physical further from 2B is not a protection from passing. Rather, being beyond 1B is a "state of being". So, since BR is in an advanced state (even though BR is not closer to 2B than R1), once R1 retouches 1B, BR is an in advanced state and has "passed" R1 by definition.

Given the language around passing is so minimal [5.09(b)(9) He passes a preceding runner before such runner is out] that logic has to be based on 5.09(b)(11) provision that "If [BR] attempts to run to second he is out when tagged".

[jimurrayalterego]

4 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Ok, I will bite because this is a good catch and interesting situation. Ready to get educated, I must say. But, could you imagine the crap show that would have went on if U1 ruled that the BR passed R1, therefore, the force was erased, thereby scoring the run? 

roughly at the 7:55 min mark.

But, technically, I think you could rule (they ruled if the umps thought about it) that they were both standing on the same base or standing at the same point and not crossing. Watching the video, The BR crosses first and goes 10 feet (?) into fair territory and back tracks when he sees the R1 returning.  The BR is standing within 18 inches (base width) of the baseline when the R1 slides into first. I don't see the R1's center of gravity across the base boundary, therefore, he didn't return pass the BR. Since the BR and R1 are on the same side of the base boundary, the linear distance is longer between the BR to second than the R1 to second. 

All of the action happened at the wall and home plate. No one was thinking about first base. (plus passing the runner isn't reviewable).

 

  

Need another angle but we might have had coach assist on R1.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Need another angle but we might have had coach assist on R1.

Good eye. Doesn't appear to have happened but was certainly close (I didn't zoom & enhance). U1 seems to be on top of that - which would have also removed the force (F2 never tagged R2, only 3B).

0:32 of Antonelli's breakdown 

 

[BigBlue4u]

Here's another question:  Should the other umpires, if they see it, mirror the left field line umpire's safe call?

[JSam21]

There is no passing on this play. We are taught at the NCAA level that there needs to be "daylight" between the two runners in order to have passing. Simply being in contact with the same base is not passing. 

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Here's another question:  Should the other umpires, if they see it, mirror the left field line umpire's safe call?

No, this is not a time where we would be mirroring a call. If we all are making a no catch signal, then who actually made the call? I understand where you are coming from and trying to add clarity to the situation, but in all intents and purposes it will just end up muddying the waters. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

There is no passing on this play. We are taught at the NCAA level that there needs to be "daylight" between the two runners in order to have passing. Simply being in contact with the same base is not passing. 

No, this is not a time where we would be mirroring a call. If we all are making a no catch signal, then who actually made the call? I understand where you are coming from and trying to add clarity to the situation, but in all intents and purposes it will just end up muddying the waters. 

The call was obvious. No need to mirror it. The clarity needs to come from what the coaches should have seen and their communication to the runners. But was that communication verbal or assistive at 1B? Not enough to judge.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

There is no passing on this play. We are taught at the NCAA level that there needs to be "daylight" between the two runners in order to have passing. Simply being in contact with the same base is not passing. 

That's my inclination as well.

I see the logic behind saying BR is beyond 1B regardless of their physical location but I believe the origination of the rule was to avoid confusing the defense and don't see how it adds confusion (and feel the existing language is not specific enough that this is a no brainer).

 

FWIW, I did get this in response to my post on Reddit:

Quote

 

"A few years ago, I had a conversation with Jeff Gosney (who is now the new NCAA national coordinator.) Whether he remembers this or still has this opinion, I do not know.

[redacted introduction of the "last time by" base cut in half diagram/concept you are familiar with]

I asked him about a fly ball where R1 holds and BR steps on and passes 1B. He stated that yes, this would be considered passing as once both of BR's feet touch the ground beyond the back edge, they are now legally considered to be between 1B and 2B, and R1 still touching the base is considered to be at 1B.

Thus, I would extend this to R1 returning to 1B after BR has passed it, but not yet returned.

This is the way I intend to (hopefully never) call it absent updated official guidance to the contrary, as the Wendelstedt* guidance mentioned in this thread predates the diagram concepts."

 

* This refers to a Baseball Rules Academy video I found of Ted Barrett saying it's "physically passed" and an attribution of Wendelstedt opining "It is only passing when the runners physically pass one another while running around the bases" https://community.hsbaseballweb.com/topic/passing-a-preceding-runner

[MadMax]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

Given the language around passing is so minimal

As such, "even with" is not (yet) passed. There's latitude in the Rules, too, about a Runner making physical contact with, and/or assisting another runner. 

3 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Should the other umpires, if they see it, mirror the left field line umpire's safe call?

No. In Professional baseball (especially), there is a very particular protocol of call responsibility, especially in regards to fly balls (catch / no-catch). Regardless of crew size, only 1 umpire has catch / no-catch responsibility on a batted ball. In our discussed play above, notice that Frelick (F8) went to deep center, all the way to the wall. Because the glove (and the catch attempt) was open towards the the ULF, he (Fairchild) made the catch / no-catch call (properly, of no-catch). And, notice too, that PU and U3 both called & signaled (force) Outs at their respective bases. 

 

[JSam21]

7 hours ago, Velho said:

That's my inclination as well.

I see the logic behind saying BR is beyond 1B regardless of their physical location but I believe the origination of the rule was to avoid confusing the defense and don't see how it adds confusion (and feel the existing language is not specific enough that this is a no brainer).

 

FWIW, I did get this in response to my post on Reddit:

* This refers to a Baseball Rules Academy video I found of Ted Barrett saying it's "physically passed" and an attribution of Wendelstedt opining "It is only passing when the runners physically pass one another while running around the bases" https://community.hsbaseballweb.com/topic/passing-a-preceding-runner

I will reach out to him and give you and tell you what he says.

[JSam21]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

That's my inclination as well.

I see the logic behind saying BR is beyond 1B regardless of their physical location but I believe the origination of the rule was to avoid confusing the defense and don't see how it adds confusion (and feel the existing language is not specific enough that this is a no brainer).

 

FWIW, I did get this in response to my post on Reddit:

* This refers to a Baseball Rules Academy video I found of Ted Barrett saying it's "physically passed" and an attribution of Wendelstedt opining "It is only passing when the runners physically pass one another while running around the bases" https://community.hsbaseballweb.com/topic/passing-a-preceding-runner

I just got a response from him and he states that he would need the BR to make an attempt to 2nd base in order to get the passing in this situation. 

[noumpere]

IIRC, the "beyond" is relative to a line perpendicular to the baseline.

 

And, the entire portion of the trailing runner must be beyond the entire portion of the lead runner.  I may not have seen all the videos / stills on this, but the couple that I saw don't really come close to passing.

 

 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

IIRC, the "beyond" is relative to a line perpendicular to the baseline.

 

And, the entire portion of the trailing runner must be beyond the entire portion of the lead runner.  I may not have seen all the videos / stills on this, but the couple that I saw don't really come close to passing.

Personally, that's my thought as well - you need both BR advancing / feinting towards 2B and physically closer to 2B.

To be clear, for NCAA that is contrary to guidance @JSam21 got from the NCAA Umpire Coordinator'sabove.

The only OBR I've been able to find is Ted Barrett (first hand 2022) and Wendlestedt (hearsay ~2013) saying physical matters.

I'm going to LL Regional school next month. I'll put in on my list to ask. Hopefully the MiLB ump that's often around will be there.

Until it gets called and becomes a sh**storm (like with retreating beyond 3B into LF that triggered a 2106 rulebook clarification ) I doubt we'll see an OBR clarification. 

 

Do with all that what you will. 😁

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, Velho said:

Personally, that's my thought as well - you need both BR advancing / feinting towards 2B and physically closer to 2B.

To be clear, for NCAA that is contrary to guidance @JSam21 got from the NCAA Umpire Coordinator'sabove.

 

 

Do with all that what you will. 😁

I'm confused. I thought @JSam21 confirmed your thought. There is no passing in the OP at 1B. Segueing to 3B I seem to recall passing being called when R3, in a rundown, overruns 3B toward the outfield to avoid 2 runners on the base when R2 had advanced to 3B.

[Velho]

47 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I'm confused. I thought @JSam21 confirmed your thought. There is no passing in the OP at 1B.

If Muncy is judged as having attempted at 2B (and given he walked about 10 feet toward it as he tried to figure out caught or not caught it’s a reasonable assumption) then Gosney is saying this IS passing because BR was beyond 1B when R1 retouched - even though Muncy was not close to 2B, ie there was no daylight between them.

Only if BR never attempted 2B would it not be passing, per Gosney

(unless I completely misunderstood @JSam21 since he’s the one that communicated with Gosney)

Also, not my theory or supposition. Just bringing it out for discussion.

[Velho]

55 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Segueing to 3B I seem to recall passing being called when R3, in a rundown, overruns 3B toward the outfield to avoid 2 runners on the base when R2 had advanced to 3B.

Depends on what play you’re referring to. It was not called that way in 2015 according to retrosheet. See 7/1/15 in link and pasted below.

https://www.retrosheet.org/passing.htm

7/1/2015 - In the bottom of the eighth in Queens, Mets pinch hitter Darrell Ceciliani missed the pitch on a squeeze play. Ruben Tejeda was run back towards 3B by catcher Miguel Montero. Tejeda ran past 3B and Montero tagged Daniel Murphy, who had advanced from 2B and was standing on 3B when tagged. Since Tejada was not on the bag, Murphy was safe. Tejada was tagged while standing behind the bag and was out. 3B umpire Chris Guccione had called Murphy out but then reversed himself and told Murphy to stay on the bag. The umpires huddled and upheld the calls. This was not a traditional passing the runner but was strange enough to include here.

 

i believe this is the play that triggered the 2016 OBR rulebook update to ensure this is called Passing.

[jimurrayalterego]

53 minutes ago, Velho said:

Depends on what play you’re referring to. It was not called that way in 2015 according to retrosheet. See 7/1/15 in link and pasted below.

https://www.retrosheet.org/passing.htm

7/1/2015 - In the bottom of the eighth in Queens, Mets pinch hitter Darrell Ceciliani missed the pitch on a squeeze play. Ruben Tejeda was run back towards 3B by catcher Miguel Montero. Tejeda ran past 3B and Montero tagged Daniel Murphy, who had advanced from 2B and was standing on 3B when tagged. Since Tejada was not on the bag, Murphy was safe. Tejada was tagged while standing behind the bag and was out. 3B umpire Chris Guccione had called Murphy out but then reversed himself and told Murphy to stay on the bag. The umpires huddled and upheld the calls. This was not a traditional passing the runner but was strange enough to include here.

 

i believe this is the play that triggered the 2016 OBR rulebook update to ensure this is called Passing.

Yes, that's the play and I misremembered it being called and remembered the new comment the next year.