tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post6458456117067595288..comments2024-01-18T06:49:55.117-08:00Comments on Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: Case Play 2013-09: Whose Base is it Anyway?Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-64222473950480507422013-09-21T14:00:51.872-07:002013-09-21T14:00:51.872-07:00ClutchUp:
Lawrie appears to be on the base when ...ClutchUp:<br /><br /><br />Lawrie appears to be on the base when tagged and its clear to me that Reyes was NOT touching the third base bag when they tagged Lawrie, thus Lawrie should not be out. Had Reyes actually been touching the bag when Lawrie was tagged then Lawrie is out and Reyes would be out because he rolled off the bag and was tagged while off the bag. It also does not appear Lawrie contact with the bag when tagged - so he's not out.<br /><br />Lawrie should be on third with one out. Iassongna got the call wrong IMO.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-40784473942124360602013-09-21T11:24:03.265-07:002013-09-21T11:24:03.265-07:00Would have been negative points for an incorrect c...Would have been negative points for an incorrect callLindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-45484369638485018442013-09-21T09:55:00.087-07:002013-09-21T09:55:00.087-07:00I'm just curious - since you are really adaman...I'm just curious - since you are really adamant about your interpretation. Do you actually umpire on any level? I'm not being facetious, but in all my years of umpiring I've never known anyone to take the position you take on being "entitled" to the baseLindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-51427997284514317972013-09-21T06:34:34.035-07:002013-09-21T06:34:34.035-07:00That's why I said I didn't necessarily agr...That's why I said I didn't necessarily agree with it. I was only trying to pose a scenario where Lawrie could be correctly ruled out by rule. If Iassogna had ruled this I still think his judgement about passing the preceding runner was off.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-10451216965638792342013-09-20T21:52:47.478-07:002013-09-20T21:52:47.478-07:00Give me one example in the entire history of baseb...Give me one example in the entire history of baseball where R2, having advanced to and standing on 3rd base is tagged out because R3 has not yet completed his advance to home. Never happenedLindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-60092237329653842672013-09-20T21:44:14.787-07:002013-09-20T21:44:14.787-07:00I wish someone was ejected!!! I own Iassogna!! ...I wish someone was ejected!!! I own Iassogna!! :-)Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-91958405740837639662013-09-20T21:19:30.709-07:002013-09-20T21:19:30.709-07:00That maybe the commonly held interpretation of tho...That maybe the commonly held interpretation of those who are not MLB umpires...but it is not the interpretation that is specifically listed in the MLB Umpire Manual.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-85645323904447632762013-09-20T21:15:53.262-07:002013-09-20T21:15:53.262-07:00Absolutely correct. I can't believe this is ev...Absolutely correct. I can't believe this is even being debated.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-70027747387936822322013-09-20T21:14:14.816-07:002013-09-20T21:14:14.816-07:00You completely missed my point.You completely missed my point.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-70028853708917221252013-09-20T21:14:09.090-07:002013-09-20T21:14:09.090-07:00We're clearly in a rules interpretation pickle...We're clearly in a rules interpretation pickle here.<br /><br />7.01 states "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base."<br /><br />Several people here are arguing that this right applies even when R3 is not touching the base, which would result in R1 being out. However, the wording of 7.03 makes this interpretation highly unlikely.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br /><br />If 7.01 was intended to be written in such a manner as to state R3 was entitled to third base, 7.03 would have been written differently as the following runner would be out even if the preceding runner was not touching the base.<br /><br /><br />Let's look at the "Segura steals first base" case play from earlier this season, as it's a very similar play. The solution to this case play, while it did not directly reference 7.01 in this context, was clearly written with the interpretation that the preceding runner had to be touching the base to be entitled to it.<br /><br /><br />Looking at the comments for the Segura play, all of them were focused on the abandonment red herring so we have no help there.<br /><br /><br />Back to yesterday's play. Given that the game would have been immediately protested had U3 used the interpretation of 7.01 being used here, it is safe to say U3 used only 7.03 to call R1 out.<br /><br /><br /><br />We are supposed to be using the rules to determine the correctness of a call, not interpreting the rules to justify an umpire's call. U3 ruled that R3 was on the base when R1 was tagged; while this is an incorrect call, people are attempting to justify the double play with the interpretation of 7.01 being discussed here.<br /><br /><br />For over a century, 7.01 has been interpreted to only entitle the runner to the base if he is occupying it. Ask any umpire; if R3 was halfway between third and home and R1 was tagged while on third base, R1 would have been ruled safe. Any umpire that interprets 7.01 in the way these comments are suggesting would be laughed out of the league.<br /><br /><br />tl;dr: Based on the common interpretation of 7.01, R1 is safe at third and R3 is out.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-35964602324090031622013-09-20T21:11:35.497-07:002013-09-20T21:11:35.497-07:00He is out based on 7.08(c), as I stated, not 7.03....He is out based on 7.08(c), as I stated, not 7.03. Lawrie did not have the legal right to even occupy the base because the base still belonged to Reyes, therefore he was liable to be put out.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-41565920414647363712013-09-20T21:09:18.955-07:002013-09-20T21:09:18.955-07:007.03 says he's only liable to be put out if bo...7.03 says he's only liable to be put out if both runners are touching the base.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-38780298657141869312013-09-20T21:06:02.686-07:002013-09-20T21:06:02.686-07:007.03(a) states that two runners may not 'occup...7.03(a) states that two runners may not 'occupy' a base, I'm sure every one can agree on that.<br /><br /><br /><br />The 'MLB Umpire Manual' interpretation states that in a run-down situation, the runner in the run-down 'occupies' (even while not touching) the preceding base up until the time he is put out or successfully reaches the next base.<br /><br /><br />Based on this interpretation, Lawrie could not be considered to have been legally occupying 3B until either after Reyes was tagged out or after Reyes successfully reached home plate. Since neither of these occurred before Lawrie was tagged, Lawrie was liable to be put out, even though he was touching a bag (he was not doing so legally).<br /><br /><br />Since Lawrie was not 'legally occupying' nor was he yet entitled to 3B, then he is out pursuant to 7.08(c), "he is tagged...while off HIS base," as Lawrie's base was actually 2B.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-32854605843540100882013-09-20T20:47:31.091-07:002013-09-20T20:47:31.091-07:00If that were true, rule 7.03 wouldn't exist.
...If that were true, rule 7.03 wouldn't exist.<br /><br />Lawrie is not liable to be put out unless Reyes is also touching 3rd.<br /><br />I've shown and cited why he's safe. Explain under what rule he's out.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-9216304307867028972013-09-20T20:42:47.333-07:002013-09-20T20:42:47.333-07:00No, Lawrie cannot safely touch the base without be...No, Lawrie cannot safely touch the base without being liable to be put out as two runners cannot occupy the base at the same time, and this situation, even though Reyes is not touching the base he is still legally occupying it.<br /><br />Using the MLB Umpire Manual interpretation... in a rundown situation , the preceding base legally belongs to the runner in the rundown...the following runner cannot legally reach (occupy) the base until the runner in the rundown is either put out or successfully or reaches the next base.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-7386465422571977622013-09-20T20:23:22.109-07:002013-09-20T20:23:22.109-07:00On what grounds would Lawrie be out? Even if it...On what grounds would Lawrie be out? Even if it's true that Reyes still occupied the base, that doesn't mean Lawrie is liable to be put out when he alone is touching it. <br /><br />7.03<br /> Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the <br />ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, the following runner <br />shall be out when tagged. The preceding runner is entitled to the base.<br /><br /><br />If in this scenario Reyes is considered to occupy 3rd base, Lawrie can still safely touch the base without being liable to be put out. If both <br />Lawrie and Reyes are touching 3rd, then Lawrie's liable to be put out.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-13418862082157424882013-09-20T20:18:11.841-07:002013-09-20T20:18:11.841-07:00No, 7.08(b) doesn't apply and I never said it ...No, 7.08(b) doesn't apply and I never said it did...but the statement in the comment regarding the legal occupation of a base is there so that we can understand why rule 7.08(b) happens the way it does and is completely based off of 7.01 and 7.03 and what constitutes the occupation of a base. <br /><br /><br /><br />The parenthetical statement in the comment is clarifying that in a run-down situation (not just in interference, but in any run-down), the runner in the run-down is considered to be legally occupying the base he was on up until the point he reaches the next base, and since two people cannot legally occupy a base according to 7.03, then Lawrie was correctly ruled out. <br /><br /><br /><br />If interference had occurred, then Lawrie would have been sent back to 2B; however, interference did not occur and since Reyes was in a run-down and did not make it to HP, he still technically occupied and was entitled to 3B.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-89114794600109501522013-09-20T20:03:14.312-07:002013-09-20T20:03:14.312-07:00I just read rule 7.08 (b) and that does not apply ...I just read rule 7.08 (b) and that does not apply here. This comment is talking about a rundown when a runner commits offensive interference.<br /><br /><br />Rule 7.08 (b) comment<br />---If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and<br /><br />is standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE, the<br /><br />umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second baseLindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-47794432599533543232013-09-20T20:02:14.953-07:002013-09-20T20:02:14.953-07:00All the comment means is that in the case of inter...All the comment means is that in the case of interference, the following runner's last legally occupied base would be second (in this case). If Reyes had been called out for interference, Lawrie would have been sent to second. As there was no interference on the play, it's completely irrelevant. Lawrie is safe because 7.03 isn't satisfied (Reyes isn't touching 3rd). Reyes is out because of 7.08c, he was tagged while off base.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-32955074191493977552013-09-20T19:55:55.622-07:002013-09-20T19:55:55.622-07:00Reyes doesn't have to be on the base to legall...Reyes doesn't have to be on the base to legally occupy as has been pointed out...in a rundown situation, the runner legally occupies the base he was already on until he successfully reaches the next base.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-80989358202276825722013-09-20T19:52:28.344-07:002013-09-20T19:52:28.344-07:00Like I said before though, Reyes was not on the ba...Like I said before though, Reyes was not on the base when,Lawrie was tagged meaning Lawrie legally obtained the base. It is only Reyes's base if he is actually on it which he was not and Lawrie was.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-55112997009686325842013-09-20T19:46:05.338-07:002013-09-20T19:46:05.338-07:00The parenthetical statement in the comment refers ...The parenthetical statement in the comment refers to ALL run-down situations, not just interference.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-54073594828177557922013-09-20T19:44:09.897-07:002013-09-20T19:44:09.897-07:00That's referring to a play with an act of offe...That's referring to a play with an act of offensive interference, meaning if Reyes had been called out for interference, Lawrie would have been sent back to 2B. It has no bearing here.<br /><br />Lawrie was on 3rd when he was tagged and Reyes was off the base at the time. Lawrie should have been ruled safe and Reyes out.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-67266827637544022992013-09-20T19:42:31.927-07:002013-09-20T19:42:31.927-07:00That is correct...because it is a rundown situatio...That is correct...because it is a rundown situation..the preceding runner is still occupying the base, even if he is not touching it...it may be ridiculous, but it is the rule, in black and white.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-52632281234788122432013-09-20T19:40:50.892-07:002013-09-20T19:40:50.892-07:00Its both ridiculous and not the rule - So if they ...Its both ridiculous and not the rule - So if they tag Lawrie while he's standing on third base and before Reyes reaches home Lawrie's out??Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.com