who should be out?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:42:29 -0400, Julie Carter <jsgoddess.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>Bases loaded. Ball hit to third baseman who throws to second baseman.
>Runner on second stays on the base at second. Second baseman steps on
>the bag and tags the runner on second, who had remained on the base.
>
>The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
>The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
>out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
>should then be allowed to stay safely at second.

Word from the umpires is that the runner on second (the one who didn't
advance) was safe on the play, but out for "abdicating his base."

??



--

Julie Carter
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

In article <301okvkk4k9pprqdd0ghnr8elv8nobskvj DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
jsgoddess DeleteThis @yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:42:29 -0400, Julie Carter <jsgoddess DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Bases loaded. Ball hit to third baseman who throws to second baseman.
> >Runner on second stays on the base at second. Second baseman steps on
> >the bag and tags the runner on second, who had remained on the base.
> >
> >The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
> >The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
> >out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
> >should then be allowed to stay safely at second.
>
> Word from the umpires is that the runner on second (the one who didn't
> advance) was safe on the play, but out for "abdicating his base."
>
> ??

Makes no sense to me. Sounds like a perversion of 7.08 (a) 2. which
allows them to call a runner out for abandoning his effort to touch the
next base, but this is clearly for people that really decide to abandon
their baserunning position. Did the runner go to the dugout, thinking he
was out?

Played under protest? Or did the manager care?


Found the real rule:

7.08
Any runner is out when_
(e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base,
after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a
runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the
force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out. The force is
removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to
advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be
tagged to be put out. However, if the forced runner, after touching the
next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied,
the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense
tags the base to which he is forced;

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:56:43 -0500, Dale Hicks <dgh1138.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> Word from the umpires is that the runner on second (the one who didn't
>> advance) was safe on the play, but out for "abdicating his base."
>>
>> ??
>
>Makes no sense to me. Sounds like a perversion of 7.08 (a) 2. which
>allows them to call a runner out for abandoning his effort to touch the
>next base, but this is clearly for people that really decide to abandon
>their baserunning position. Did the runner go to the dugout, thinking he
>was out?
>
>Played under protest? Or did the manager care?

Apparently the runner at second left the field and went to the dugout.

I should have mentioned that the runner from first was originally
called out, and the runner on second was called safe. What it appears
is that the guy on second thought he was called out and left the field
when it was the guy behind him who was actually called out.



--

Julie Carter
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:17:36 -0400, Julie Carter <jsgoddess.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I should have mentioned that the runner from first was originally
>called out, and the runner on second was called safe. What it appears
>is that the guy on second thought he was called out and left the field
>when it was the guy behind him who was actually called out.

Gah, I keep forgetting parts. The runner from first called out. The
runner on second called safe. Protests from the Indians lead to an
umpire conference. At the end of the conference, both are called out.
So it *looked* like they were calling both out because of the play,
not because someone left the base. The "abdicated the base"
explanation didn't come for a few innings.



--

Julie Carter
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

In article <t95okvoojrh0bhlj9q44p2aj9ficqjobme.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
jsgoddess.DeleteThis@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:17:36 -0400, Julie Carter <jsgoddess.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I should have mentioned that the runner from first was originally
> >called out, and the runner on second was called safe. What it appears
> >is that the guy on second thought he was called out and left the field
> >when it was the guy behind him who was actually called out.
>
> Gah, I keep forgetting parts. The runner from first called out. The
> runner on second called safe. Protests from the Indians lead to an
> umpire conference. At the end of the conference, both are called out.
> So it *looked* like they were calling both out because of the play,
> not because someone left the base. The "abdicated the base"
> explanation didn't come for a few innings.

Yeah, the "safe guy goes to the dugout" part is an important part. The
call makes perfect sense now.

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

>From: Julie Carter

>The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
>The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
>out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
>should then be allowed to stay safely at second.
>

Umpires got it wrong. What the 2Bman should do in this case is tag the runner
first...then tag the base.



Bruce Grossberg
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

In article <20030826205011.02463.00000423 DeleteThis @mb-m23.aol.com>, savoybg DeleteThis @aol.com
says...
> >From: Julie Carter
>
> >The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
> >The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
> >out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
> >should then be allowed to stay safely at second.
>
> Umpires got it wrong. What the 2Bman should do in this case is tag the runner
> first...then tag the base.

For a clear enough rule, just look in 2.00
A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to
occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. Confusion
regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the
"force" situation is removed during the play. Example: Man on first,
one out, ball hit sharply to first baseman who touches the bag and
batter runner is out. The force is removed at that moment [...]

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:42:29 -0400, Julie Carter <jsgoddess RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>I'm reading what seem to be the relevant rules, but the umpires in the
>game ruled differently and my understanding of the game agrees with
>them.
>
>Bases loaded. Ball hit to third baseman who throws to second baseman.
>Runner on second stays on the base at second. Second baseman steps on
>the bag and tags the runner on second, who had remained on the base.
>
Stepping on the base removes the force, therefore only the runner from
1st base should have been called out. Second baseman should have
tagged the runner standing on 2nd and then the base for a DP.

>The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
>The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
>out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
>should then be allowed to stay safely at second.

The announcers are right. Is it possible that the 2nd baseman
actually tagged the runner standing on 2nd before he touched 2nd base?
>
>But, well, if that were true, then there should be no reason for a
>runner to try to advance on a potential double play (for example)
>because there is no way the defense would be able to put the runner
>out (they could only tag the base or the batter and get one out).

I don't get what you're saying here. Let's say there's a man on 1st &
no outs. The batter ground to SS. If the runner on 1st stays on the
base, he will be forced at 2nd & the throw to 1st will complete the DP
if it beats the batter/runner there.
>
>So, it seems that the forced runner should be, well, forced to run
>rather than staying at their base, but I can't find the relevant rule.
>
>The closest I can find: 7.03
>Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive,
>two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out
>when tagged. The preceding runner is entitled to the base.

True, but it doesn't apply to the above scenario.
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:17:32 GMT, jimpgh2002
<jimpgh2002 RemoveThis @nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

>>But, well, if that were true, then there should be no reason for a
>>runner to try to advance on a potential double play (for example)
>>because there is no way the defense would be able to put the runner
>>out (they could only tag the base or the batter and get one out).
>
>I don't get what you're saying here. Let's say there's a man on 1st &
>no outs. The batter ground to SS. If the runner on 1st stays on the
>base, he will be forced at 2nd & the throw to 1st will complete the DP
>if it beats the batter/runner there.

You're right. I was thinking for some reason that the runner could
stay on the base without danger. I was forgetting the other part of
the force. Sorry!



--

Julie Carter
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

Julie Carter <jsgoddess DeleteThis @yahoo.com> writes:

>Bases loaded. Ball hit to third baseman who throws to second baseman.
>Runner on second stays on the base at second. Second baseman steps on
>the bag and tags the runner on second, who had remained on the base.

>The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.

ESPN is clarifying this a bit. The runner who started at second was
actually safe on the play, but didn't realize it. He thought that he had
been called out, so he started heading back to the dugout, at which point
the umpire called him out for abandoning the field. The ump claims that
he was very clear about who he called out and who he called safe, but the
runner says that he thought that the ump had called him out. I'm not
terribly sympathetic; players should know the rules, which clearly show
that the (non)runner from second is safe in this case.

>The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
>out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
>should then be allowed to stay safely at second.

That's correct.

>But, well, if that were true, then there should be no reason for a
>runner to try to advance on a potential double play (for example)
>because there is no way the defense would be able to put the runner
>out (they could only tag the base or the batter and get one out).

Not at all. The runner remains vulnerable _until the trailing runner is
put out_. So suppose that there's a standard double play situation with
a runner at first base and a ground ball hit to the infield. If the
runner at first refuses to advance, the defense can still record the
double play by forcing him at second and then throwing to first to put
out the batter. Or, for that matter, they can put him out by throwing
the ball to the first baseman when he's not touching first base, having
the first baseman tag the runner and then step on first base to retire
the batter. But if the batter is put out before the runner on first- for
instance if the first baseman fields a ground ball and immediately
touches the base- then the force is removed and the defense has to tag
the runner from first to put him out.

A play like this is the only reason that Bill Mazeroski had the
opportunity for his heroics in game 7 of the 1960 World Series. In the
top of the ninth, the Yankees had the tying run in Long at third, Mantle
at first, and one out. Berra hit a grounder to first, and Pirates first
sacker Rocky Nelson stepped on the bag to try to start a double play.
Mantle alertly dived back to the bag, avoiding Nelson's tag and allowing
Long to score the tying run.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

"Julie Carter" <jsgoddess.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69vnkvgacnlsona6dg9m4taph2k2khfaid@4ax.com...
>
> I'm reading what seem to be the relevant rules, but the umpires in the
> game ruled differently and my understanding of the game agrees with
> them.
>
> Bases loaded. Ball hit to third baseman who throws to second baseman.
> Runner on second stays on the base at second. Second baseman steps on
> the bag and tags the runner on second, who had remained on the base.
>
> The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
> The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
> out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
> should then be allowed to stay safely at second.
>
> But, well, if that were true, then there should be no reason for a
> runner to try to advance on a potential double play (for example)
> because there is no way the defense would be able to put the runner
> out (they could only tag the base or the batter and get one out).
>
> So, it seems that the forced runner should be, well, forced to run
> rather than staying at their base, but I can't find the relevant rule.
>
> The closest I can find: 7.03
> Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive,
> two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out
> when tagged. The preceding runner is entitled to the base.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Julie Carter

The runner at second should've been called out for being stupid! Bases
loaded, (apparently) less than 2 out, and he stays at second on a ground
ball?? Geez! Were the Tigers batting? Or was it the Injuns?

Steve
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

>The runner at second should've been called out for being stupid! Bases
>loaded, (apparently) less than 2 out, and he stays at second on a ground
>ball?? Geez! Were the Tigers batting? Or was it the Injuns?


Well, I didn't see the play, but maybe it was a low line drive and he thought
it was caught?
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out? 

On 27 Aug 2003 00:50:11 GMT, savoybg.DeleteThis@aol.com (SavoyBG) wrote:

>>From: Julie Carter
>
>>The umpires (Detroit at Cleveland tonight) ruled both runners out.
>>The announcers are claiming that only the runner from first should be
>>out because the tagged base removes the force and the runner on second
>>should then be allowed to stay safely at second.
>>
>
>Umpires got it wrong. What the 2Bman should do in this case is tag the runner
>first...then tag the base.
>

Sounds right...reminiscent of "I can't reverse my call now"...later in
the game "I have to reverse my call because it's a rule, not a
judgement", on an infield fly...

Does anyone truly understand the infield fly rule?

Tom

PS-It isn't to rob the offense of base hits, don't you see?

>
>
>Bruce Grossberg
>
 >> Stay informed about: who should be out?