Phantom triple play.

You correct, they messed up the R2 call. Should have been R2, two outs. 

I agree. I think U2 wasn't looking at the feet--if he had, he would have seen that R2 was off the bag when R1 was tagged.

I can't tell if you guys (jjk and MST) are looking at some other video, or are just using the R1/R2 terminology loosely.

Let me temporarily use a different set of names.  As the play begins A is on 2nd, and B is on 1st.  The're both going on the pitch. After the strikeout, F5 gets the ball while A is far from 3rd, and A runs back toward 2nd with F5 chasing him.  B is standing on 2nd.  A reaches 2nd without being tagged, and F5 tags B.  B is called out.  At the moment B is tagged, A has probably left 2nd towards third, but the video is not clear enough to determine when B is first tagged.  A is subsequently tagged out near 3rd.  

I believe that jjk and MST contend that 1) A wasn't touching 2nd when B was tagged, and 2) that means B shouldn't have been called out.

Let's assume that A wasn't touching 2nd when B was tagged.  Does that mean B is not liable to be put out while he is touching 2nd?   The answer is no-- he is not entitled to the base.  Here's NCAA rule 8-1c:

If a runner is in a run down between bases and the following runner occupies the same base the first runner has left, the second runner cannot be put out while occupying said base. If the first runner, however, returns safely to the base last touched and both runners then are occupying the same base, the second runner is out, if touched with the ball and there is no force.

Once A touches 2nd (or just comes close to it), he re-acquires the base, and A is not entitled to it.  Note that throughout the NCAA rule book occupy does not typically mean touch.  This situation is different from OBR, in which both runners would need to be touching the base in order for B to be called out. 

OBR in my blood, sorry.  Ex: Bases loaded: R3 @ 3rd, R2 @ 2nd, R1 @ 1st.

I contend that: Though both were touching 2nd, the tag was not applied to the right guy, "the guy from first 1B", until, after R2 left the base.  I.e. they were not both "occupying" the base when the following runner was tagged.    

#Fingers: You claim that no matter where the lead runner is, as long as he hasn't reached the next base the following runner is out if tagged on the bag?  I disagree.

OBR and NCAA are the same.  Everyone should have been called safe until R2 was tagged near 3rd base.

Sure, that's the correct way to describe the runners.  But each designation has to apply to same runner throughout the play.  You wrote "Then as R1 is tagged R2 is now "off the bag" heading back towards 3rd, R2 shoulda been called safe at that point.  Not that it affected the outcome but, shoulda been R2 with two outs IMHO."  I think you really mean that R1 shoulda been called safe, and that at the end of the play, R1 should have been left at second with two outs.  In the next play we would have R2, two outs.  MST wrote "they messed up the R2 call", I suspect he meant R1.

quote:

You claim that no matter where the lead runner is, as long as he hasn't reached the next base the following runner is out if tagged on the bag?

No, I don't think that, nor does the rule quoted in italics in my first post say "no matter where."  

The OP you are correct, R1 should have been typed in lieu of R2.  R2 R1 shoulda been called safe at that point   

And no it does not say "no matter where" in the quoted portion, which I'll assume is pasted directly from a rule book.   

My question was directed at the pargraph below that, which is not in italics, which led me to believe those to be your words...

Once A touches 2nd (or just comes close to it), he re-acquires the base, and A is not entitled to it.  Note that throughout the NCAA rule book occupy does not typically mean touch.  This situation is different from OBR, in which both runners would need to be touching the base in order for B to be called out.   

That is what I disagreed with, in all codes.

I used R2 instead of R1 on the tag, but it is correct to say at the conclusion it should be two outs and R2. The former R1 now legally on second so he is now the R2. In NCAA, the two runners need to be touching the base at the same time, the same as OBR. 

My son played with the UNC Wilimington ss in high school and we had the same debate after watching the ESPN replays.  After several texts we were told the runner approaching second (whether R2 or B) was NOT touching second when he was called out.  The replay view is partially blocked by the umpire, making it appear he was touching second, which creates the confusion.  

Looking at it closely, you can see R1 has taken his foot off the base when he is tagged (then he puts it back).  U2 is looking right at it.  I'm glad they got it right.

First of all using R1 and R2 is the right way to refer to the runners not A and B.

Second your understanding of the rule is wrong.  If both runners are touching the bag then the trailing runner is out when tagged (assuming of course that he wasn't forced there) and the lead runner is not out when tagged (assuming of course that he wasn't forced from there). 

 If the lead runners is not touching the bag then the trailing runner is not out if he is tagged while touching the base.  It doesn't matter that the lead runner had once returned as long as he is not currently "returned" when the tag is applied to the trailing runner.

Thirdly "just comes close to it" has nothing to do with this play and might just be one of the strangest things Ive ever read about the rules.

So you prefer Able and Baker to A and B?  There are two schemes for using R1, R2 to identifying runners.  The more typical (and far superior way) is to use each runner's base at the time of the pitch as the number.  FED uses an inferior method in which the number implies the order the runner have on the bases.   Since both jjk and MST were inconsistent in their usage, I chose to (as I wrote, temporarily) employ a different terminology.  Of course, A and B are perfectly correct ways to refer to runners--as alluded to by the smiley above, it's the way OBR does it.  Calling the runners A and B is more verbose than R1/R2, but there is less possibility of confusion.

As it turns out, both jjk and MST had typos in their posts, as you can see by reading their subsequent posts.  

"Just comes close to it" is not a strange concept.  In general, a runner acquires a base by "coming close" to it. Where we differ is whether the NCAA's use of "occupy" means "touch" or "acquire".  I understand that the general view among umpires is that the NCAA rule is the same as other codes, and that "occupy" means "touch".  

I am well familiar with FEDs backwards way of using R1 and R2 but they stil ldont use A and B.  And you could just as easily have had typos using that.

And, I disagree that a runner "acquires a base by coming close to it".   Or maybe Im just not understanding what you mean by it.  If you mean something other that "a runner is deemed to have touched the base when he passes it, until it's appealed" then please explain more.

You must have a much better res and zoom than me, cause I don't see the right foot of B, er, ah, R2, I mean R1, even wiggle.  So heck yeah, great if it was right. 

It didn't appear anybody argued it,,although, that alone certainly doesn't convince me of the accuracy of the call. Though it would be nice to know. 1 of those 5 around the bag knew what to do, cause the other 4 sure didn't.