I think that triple play where no fielder touched the ball really happened like this:?

Question

I read about a strange triple play in a baseball forum. The guy said he read about it in a baseball digest: this supposedly happened in a minor-league game in the 1950s. There was a TP in which no fielder touched the ball. The bases are loaded and the runners are going on the pitch. The batter hits an infield pop-up. The umpire immediately invokes the infield-fly rule; the batter is automatically out (out #1). The runner from 1st keeps going and passes the runner on second, who apparently either has frozen or is moving back toward the bag (the runner from 1st is out #2). Then the ball lands on the runner from 1st (out #3). The shortstop gets credit for all 3 outs since he was the closest fielder to the play. BUT, how can the runner from 1st make two outs? You can't be out twice. I think it happened like this: Out #2: the runner from 1st passes the runner on 2nd, who is trying to get back to 2nd. The runner on 2nd stumbles and the the ball lands on him, thus he is the 3rd out. Right?

The runner from first base kept running, while the runner from second base tried to return to 2nd base--remember, all the runners were running on the pitch. Somewhere around second base, the runner from first passed the runner from second, who probably stumbled and fell on his way back to 2nd (that's why he couldn't move out of the way of the ball and it hit him). Batter was out #1 (Infield Fly Rule); runner from 1st was out #2 (passing the runner in front of him); and the runner from 2nd was out #3 b/c he was hit by a live ball before any fielder touched it. Remember, the infield fly rule doesn't mean the ball is dead: The batter is automatically out and the runners can advance at their own risk. The ball does not have to be caught by a fielder for the batter to be out; he is already out on the I-F Rule. Runners can advance if the ball is caught, but must tag up as with any other fly ball. If it isn't caught, they don't have to tag up, but it's risky to advance. Make sense?

So the question is this: Do you think it happened the way I relate it (Batter is out #1; runner on first is out #2, and runner on second is out #3)?

That is most likely what happened, b/c the way the original reader wrote it in the forum, he said (in paraphrase): The batter was out because of the infield fly-rule; the runner from 1st was out because he passed the runner on second--so far we're okay--; but then he says that the same runner from 1st, as he was rounding 2nd base, got hit by the ball and became out #3. A runner or batter cannot make two outs at once. You can't be called out twice on the same play. That is the definition of out: Once you are out you are no longer in the play; you can't continue the play and go on to make another out. I think the reader misunderstood this rule and thought it was the same runner who passed the runner on second and got hit w/ the ball. It had to have been the runner on 2nd who got hit with the ball, after the runner from 1st passed him.

Final note: Had the runner on 2nd been hit before the runner from 1st passed him, it would have been only a double play. (The ball is dead after it hits a runner, so it doesn't matter what happens after that.) It wouldn't have mattered that the runner on 1st passed him.

Note of interest: Normally a batter gets credit for a hit if the ball hits the runner in fair territory before a fielder touches it, but I think in this case (an infield fly), he's already been called out; so he can't get credit for a hit. Thus, it's a triple play and the SS (the closest fielder to the play) gets credit for an easy "untouched-unassisted" triple play. Pretty weird, huh? Again, this wasn't in the majors, but in the minors, in the 1950s Pacific-Coast League.

Old School, if you read the question carefully, you'll see that I'm the one who's saying a batter or runner cannot make two outs at once. The guy who originally related this play in the baseball forum was the one who thought the runner from 1st made outs #2 and #3. I'm saying it must have been the runner from 2nd base who got hit with the ball for the third out, because I know the runner on first was out already for passing the runner on 2nd (and the ball is still in play at this point); so it couldn't have been the first-base runner who got hit with the ball--unless it was the runner from 2nd who passed the runner on third base. Then the runner on first could have been the one to get hit by the ball--but only after the other runner was called out, of course. I don't know how accurate the guy was in relating this play; he said he read it in a baseball digest. I am just fixing it to where it makes baseball sense.

After further review...I just checked the forum @ Baseball-reference.com/bullpen, where I saw the posting. And yes, you're right. The runners were not going on the pitch. I have just read another site, Mike's Baseball Rants (Baseball Toaster) where he talks about this play. He says this is one of those stories that has been circulating as a baseball urban legend in baseball sites. Did it happen? Some people believe it happened in the minor leagues, but no one seems to know for sure. Could it happen? Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely. He goes on to explain step-by-step how it could happen: exactly how I detailed it above: Infield fly/Runner on 1st passes runner on 2nd/Runner on 2nd is hit by ball off the bag (he has to be hit off the bag in order to be out; if the ball hits him while he's touching the bag, he's safe). However, he says it's unlikely that the runner on 1st would pass the 2nd runner, unless he doesn't know where the ball is or thinks there're 2 outs.

And finally....Here's how it could happen: The 3 runners fake a steal. The ball is popped up, the runner on 1st loses the ball (and doesn't hear the ump call "Infield Fly"); thinks it's out in the gap somewhere; has a near collision with the runner on 2nd as he passes him; the runner on 2nd, attempting to get back to 2nd, tries to avoid the runner from 1st, but trips and falls...right into the path of the dropping ball...and the rest is history. Another question is, where are the fielders? Why would the popup fall on a runner instead of an infielder's glove? Well, it is possible that the shortstop or 2nd-baseman lost the ball in the sun as well, or couldn't get to the ball because of the congestion of runners around second. In any case, it is possible, but all those factors would have to come together. Again, it is very, very unlikely. Just as likely as a three-year-old is of catching Barry Bond's 756th HR on the third scoop of his ice cream cone. Possible, but improbable.

Answer 1

i dont kno he cant be out after being out already but your second version sounds fine

Answer 2

On one of your edits you say that if the batted ball hits a runner before the fielder touches it, the batter is credited with a hit. This is only partially true.

If the batted ball hits a runner, it is at the discretion of the official scorer whether to call it a hit or an out, based on what he thinks it would have been if the ball had not hit the runner.

Answer 3

Although possible, I have never heard that before. However, the idea that runners would be going on the pitch with the bases loaded and nobody out is not likely. Therefore I do not believe this ever happened.

Answer 4

Grand Slam, runner on 2nd fails to the touch domicile plate, runner on first touches domicile, batter touches domicile, protection happens, apeals to umpire for missed plate, pitcher throws ball to catcher, catcher steps on plate, runner on 2nd out, runner from 1st technically then has surpassed a runner interior the backside direction considering the fact that previous runner identity no longer touch the plate, comparable is going for batter, having pased the comparable batter, who did no longer touch domicile. 3 outs!!

Answer 5

im confused. what does the runner from 1st passes the runner on 2nd, who is trying to get back to 2nd mean?

Answer 6

Can't happen. One runner cannot make two outs, even in this scenario.

Answer 7

it sounds unlikely cuz everybody would have heard of that happening. but its possible

Answer 8

Where is the question? Because it is plausable.