All of this is moot for one (well, two) reasons: 1 )already ruled upon but 2)the interference by the non-player would have killed the play and the umpires award bases based on what they think would have been achieved. They would obviously have awarded home to the runner on third.

 

The ONLY MAYBE way I could see this play not resulting in a run is if the umpires said both runners on 1st and 2nd abandoned the base path. Maybe.

So what if my example happens in the bottom of the 7th inning of a tie game. Before the top of the 8th inning the game is delayed by rain and postponed. Now (after the fact) that situation would've been an end of game situation, and thus the run should've counted?

 

Everything seems to point to the correct call being made yesterday, I just don't see the purpose of the rule. Why have a different enforcement of the rule for different game scenarios? Seems ridiculously stupid to me.

Just for the record, I think BP is the one who went out and got the ball. He threw it into to someone at second (either Hamilton or DeJesus). They stepped on second. The next thing I saw was DeJesus stepping on third.

Reds definitely did it out of order, if that's what they were trying to do (show force out double play).

Just for the record, I think BP is the one who went out and got the ball. He threw it into to someone at second (either Hamilton or DeJesus). They stepped on second. The next thing I saw was DeJesus stepping on third.

Reds definitely did it out of order, if that's what they were trying to do (show force out double play).

 

The worker threw the ball to BP.

Hate to see the Reds lose, although I am somewhat immune to it now, but glad to see someone with some common sense (umps?) resolve the issue. Would you really be proud of your home town team if they had called both runners out on a technicality? The run had scored. Batter touched first base. The Reds made no effort to contest the batted ball.

Hate to see the Reds lose, although I am somewhat immune to it now, but glad to see someone with some common sense (umps?) resolve the issue. Would you really be proud of your home town team if they had called both runners out on a technicality? The run had scored. Batter touched first base. The Reds made no effort to contest the batted ball.

 

Rules are rules. No different than any other contested play.

The worker threw the ball to BP.

 

Correct. But it seemed some were inferring that BP was the one that stepped on the bag. He was simply the relay man.

So then how does it not count in yesterday's game, assuming they did it in the correct order?

 

I think they probably didn't do it in the correct order but I also think that once the run scored and batter runner reached first base, it's irrelevant because the game has ended with the winning run crossing the plate. All other plays dead at that point

They went through it on pre-game before last night's debacle. They pieced together video conclusively showing the following:

 

Security guard threw the ball to BP in CF

BP thew the ball to Hamilton who touched 2B

Hamilton threw the ball to Suarez who then touched 1B

Suarez tossed the ball to DeJesus who then touched 3B

AZ batter runner touched 1B and runner on 3B touched home.

AZ runners on 1B & 2B did not touch 2B & 3B respectively and went to celebrate.

 

The Creeper said something to the effect that the rule quoted above and by Price in the postgame press conference was incorrectly applied by the umps. THAT was not a correct rationale for allowing the run to score. However, the security guard intervening and the Reds touching the bases in the wrong order (2B, then 1B then 3B) would have made a protest problematic.

 

Jim Day said Reds had to decide whether to protest by Noon on MON and they didn't. Said economics of going back to AZ to play an inning or 2 when neither are in contention and the uncertainty of any ruling let them not to protest. Intimated that maybe a clarification from MLB would be in order.

 

Suspect the fact pattern will find its way to some umpire exams at the Wendlestadt school and elsewhere.