ASA Simultaneously touching a base

[fitzpats]

Scenario:

R1 on 3rd. R2 on 2nd. Batter hits a slow roller to pitcher for a 1-3 put out. R2 takes off for third without realizing that R1 hasn't gone anywhere. After the 1-3 out, they throw home as R1 is heading home because he felt forced (no force though) and is caught in a run down. R2 has since touched third, and R1 is waiting to see what catcher is going to do. Catcher runs R1 back to third, and ignores R2 going back to second. At the end of the play, R2 is on 2, R1 is on 3, Batter is out.

Umps converge and discuss. Call R2 out because he couldn't touch the base simultaneously while R1 has ownership of the base. I discussed with blue, but was dismissed. I protested, and they didn't take any information. We still won, but my question is, would I have won the protest? I was gonna print off the rule 8-3-E from the 2008 rule book. (I don't have a newer book) Am I missing anything?

 

[jsam21238]

I'm so confused by this question..... I'm going to re read and give an answer.


You would have won... There is no rule that states a runner can't touch another bag then retreat. You just can't physically pass the runner ahead of you. Should have remained 2nd and 3rd with BR being out.

 

[buckster]

Once R1 left 3rd, R2 is allowed to occupy that base. If R1 retreats to 3rd while R2 is occupying 3rd, R2 is not under an obligation to relinquish the legally obtained base.
Did R2 at any point pass R1? If the answer is no, then the end of the play in the OP should have stood. You can have 2 or 3 runners on 1 base... but whoever obtained it legally first has the right to occupy that base. R2 touching 3rd while R1 is in a rundown between 3rd and home is not illegal and he should not have been called out.

You would have won the protest.

 

[EsqUmp]

Once R1 left 3rd, R2 is allowed to occupy that base. If R1 retreats to 3rd while R2 is occupying 3rd, R2 is not under an obligation to relinquish the legally obtained base.
Did R2 at any point pass R1? If the answer is no, then the end of the play in the OP should have stood. You can have 2 or 3 runners on 1 base... but whoever obtained it legally first has the right to occupy that base. R2 touching 3rd while R1 is in a rundown between 3rd and home is not illegal and he should not have been called out.

You would have won the protest.

Your answer is a 100% contradiction, only to be emphasized by you bolding "FIRST."

 

[NCASAUmp]

Scenario:

R1 on 3rd. R2 on 2nd. Batter hits a slow roller to pitcher for a 1-3 put out. R2 takes off for third without realizing that R1 hasn't gone anywhere. After the 1-3 out, they throw home as R1 is heading home because he felt forced (no force though) and is caught in a run down. R2 has since touched third, and R1 is waiting to see what catcher is going to do. Catcher runs R1 back to third, and ignores R2 going back to second. At the end of the play, R2 is on 2, R1 is on 3, Batter is out.

Umps converge and discuss. Call R2 out because he couldn't touch the base simultaneously while R1 has ownership of the base. I discussed with blue, but was dismissed. I protested, and they didn't take any information. We still won, but my question is, would I have won the protest? I was gonna print off the rule 8-3-E from the 2008 rule book. (I don't have a newer book) Am I missing anything?

I'm very satisfied with your perception of the ruling. Good job, fitzpats. Correct rule citation, correct interpretation.

Once R1 left 3rd, R2 is allowed to occupy that base. If R1 retreats to 3rd while R2 is occupying 3rd, R2 is not under an obligation to relinquish the legally obtained base.
Did R2 at any point pass R1? If the answer is no, then the end of the play in the OP should have stood. You can have 2 or 3 runners on 1 base... but whoever obtained it legally first has the right to occupy that base. R2 touching 3rd while R1 is in a rundown between 3rd and home is not illegal and he should not have been called out.

You would have won the protest.

You're so close, but not quite there. I think you're overanalyzing it, so let's look at the rule.

ASA 8-3-E: Two runners may not occupy the same base at the same time..
EFFECT: The runner who first legally occupied the base is entitled to that base, unless forced to advance. The other runner may be put out by being tagged with the ball.

R1 first legally occupied 3rd base at the start of this play, and there was no force. Therefor, R1 was entitled to 3rd base throughout this entire play, even though he attempted to advance to home plate. This attempt to advance does not negate his entitlement to 3rd base.

Make sense?

 

[EdFred]

Make sense?

Which basically says if R1 and R2 end up both standing on the bag at some point during the play, and are both tagged by the catcher because he doesn't know which one has it. R1 is safe R2 is out.

Which is what Buckster was saying, I believe. R1 had it first, it's always R1's until he's tagged out while off the bag or scores.

 

[Fin09]

Note in the rule citation that the runner (in this case the runner who started on 2nd) can be tagged out while touching 3rd. Neither runner is out just because they may have touched the base at the same time. Safest thing to do as a defensive player would be to tag each of them (while they're both in contact with the base) and let the umpire call the one from 2nd out.

 

[Jayrock]

Quick question guys! What would he have won if he won the protest? I have never been involved in a game played under protest so what actually happens in this situation?

 

[beernbombs]

Usually, umpire would go to UIC and get a ruling. If call was changed/corrected, runners would be put in proper places and game continues.

 

[Jayrock]

Usually, umpire would go to UIC and get a ruling. If call was changed/corrected, runners would be put in proper places and game continues.

So the game stops until a ruling is made. Interesting, I wonder how that would work in a local league where most have time limits.

 

[fitzpats]

I'm not sure what this league would have done, but others I've been in would finish the game under protest and then file with the LD to have the ruling changed. If the call was overturned, LD would bring the teams out to finish the game again with the call being corrected. In this scenario, game would be replayed from top 5 with 2 outs and runners on 2nd & 3rd. The result of the continued game would replace the original result.

 

[EAJuggalo]

What should happen is that the home team makes a notation in thier book with the situation, runners on base, outs, score etc. The game continues, if the protesting team wins nothing happens. If the protesting team loses they file their protest with the LD and UIC with a protest fee, usually about $50 around here. If the protest is won the game resumes from the time of the protest with the correct call made.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I'm not sure what this league would have done, but others I've been in would finish the game under protest and then file with the LD to have the ruling changed. If the call was overturned, LD would bring the teams out to finish the game again with the call being corrected. In this scenario, game would be replayed from top 5 with 2 outs and runners on 2nd & 3rd. The result of the continued game would replace the original result.

...assuming that the team that protested ended up losing the game.

If the protesting team wins, then the call, even if incorrect, had no effect upon the team's ability to win the game. The protest is dropped.

 

[Jayrock]

Thanks for the replies.

 

[fitzpats]

...assuming that the team that protested ended up losing the game.

If the protesting team wins, then the call, even if incorrect, had no effect upon the team's ability to win the game. The protest is dropped.

Very true. And that is why we are not filing a protest today. There was another call from the same blue on a catch and carry. He awarded two bases when it should have been one. Why can't all fields have fences down the side to eliminate the unintentional stepping out of play?

 

[buckster]

R1 first legally occupied 3rd base at the start of this play, and there was no force. Therefore, R1 was entitled to 3rd base throughout this entire play, even though he attempted to advance to home plate. This attempt to advance does not negate his entitlement to 3rd base.

Make sense?

Yes, sir! Overanalyzing things is my specialty... Thanks for the clarification!

 

[irishmafia]

Why can't all fields have fences down the side to eliminate the unintentional stepping out of play?

Remember, you asked the question.

The answer is, grass maintenance. It is easier to cut the grass and move machinery from field to field without the need to open and close gates, not to mention replacing them every other year due to the abuse by the players and others who want the same access.

Ridiculous? Sure, but true.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Remember, you asked the question.

The answer is, grass maintenance. It is easier to cut the grass and move machinery from field to field without the need to open and close gates, not to mention replacing them every other year due to the abuse by the players and others who want the same access.

Ridiculous? Sure, but true.

Very true. I had a much easier time maintaining the fields that didn't have fences. If I needed to hustle from one field to the next, I just cut across the outfield and down the hill to get where I was going.

And all you guys hitting the ball against the fence can also take part of the blame for the lack of fences.