Runner leads off second... Towards first.

[Moe]

Didn't happen in my game, but a manager/board member asked me a question after one of my games. He said that during one of his teams games (U10), his runner successfully stole second, but at the next pitch he took a lead off of second towards first. He said that he knew the pitcher and was trying to mess him up. I said that I can't think of an exact rule, and I later checked, saying that he couldn't do it, but he would have to make sure he touched second to go to third, and that he is not on a base so he is eligible to be put out. I also said that, had I been the BU, that I would just tell him to get back on the base because to me, that's unsportsmanlike conduct. 

 

Thoughts?

[maven]

You had it right the first time. No rule dictates how a runner must lead off, but the runner is putting himself at a disadvantage by increasing the distance (and putting a base to touch) between him and his advance base.

 

If I were F1 (or his coach), I'd just smile at the attempt to disconcert me. "Look at me, I'm screwing myself!" Yeah, that stings.

 

On a fly ball, a clever umpire might also have him out for getting a running start on a retouch. 7.10(a)

[noumpere]

The first time I saw it, I might invoke 7.01 CMT.

 

Then, if it's clear by words that it's just a "skunk in the outfield" leadoff, let it go.

 

And, since the runner can't return to first, I'm not sure he needs to touch second on the way to third -- interesting question.  (I agree on the "no running start" on a fly ball).

[Jimurray]

You had it right the first time. No rule dictates how a runner must lead off, but the runner is putting himself at a disadvantage by increasing the distance (and putting a base to touch) between him and his advance base.

 

If I were F1 (or his coach), I'd just smile at the attempt to disconcert me. "Look at me, I'm screwing myself!" Yeah, that stings.

 

On a fly ball, a clever umpire might also have him out for getting a running start on a retouch. 7.10(a)

The defense would have to be clever to appeal it before you could rule on it.

[maven]

 

 

 On a fly ball, a clever umpire might also have him out for getting a running start on a retouch. 7.10(a)

The defense would have to be clever to appeal it before you could rule on it.

 

 

Are you sure? I seem to recall that a running-start retouch is a live-ball out, like passing a runner.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

 

 On a fly ball, a clever umpire might also have him out for getting a running start on a retouch. 7.10(a)

The defense would have to be clever to appeal it before you could rule on it.

 

 

Are you sure? I seem to recall that a running-start retouch is a live-ball out, like passing a runner.

 

 

Pretty sure the running start is a live ball out.  

[Jimurray]

I think you call it in FED but I believe it needs to be appealed on NCAA andOBR.

[afaber12]

There's not a prescribed penalty specifically for a runner taking a "flying" start (pretty sure that's some ye olde terminolgie right there). The 7.10a Comment only establishes that such a flying start would not be a valid way for a runner to tag up on a catch, so you'd have to wait for an appeal in OBR to get that out. It'd be a stretch, but I think 7.08i would be a better way to try an get an instant out.

[Senor Azul]

Of course, a runner cannot return beyond his occupied base (take a lead to the wrong side). And the applicable rule is 7.01 Comment. The penalty is not specified in the rule itself so you have to find an authoritative interpretation. You can find one in the Jaksa/Roder book and also in Carl Childress' BRD. The J/R says:

 

"Once a pitcher is in-contact with the rubber a runner, regardless of purpose, may not return beyond his occupied base." (p. 50, 2010 edition)

 

The BRD shows a concurring opinion from Jim Evans. Then Mr. Childress adds this note: "all authorities agree on one point: If a runner tries to return to a previous base after the pitcher has the ball on the rubber, the runner is out."

[noumpere]

I think you call it in FED but I believe it needs to be appealed on NCAA andOBR.

Correct.

[Rich Ives]

Of course, a runner cannot return beyond his occupied base (take a lead to the wrong side). And the applicable rule is 7.01 Comment. The penalty is not specified in the rule itself so you have to find an authoritative interpretation. You can find one in the Jaksa/Roder book and also in Carl Childress' BRD. The J/R says:

 

"Once a pitcher is in-contact with the rubber a runner, regardless of purpose, may not return beyond his occupied base." (p. 50, 2010 edition)

 

The BRD shows a concurring opinion from Jim Evans. Then Mr. Childress adds this note: "all authorities agree on one point: If a runner tries to return to a previous base after the pitcher has the ball on the rubber, the runner is out."

 

But he's not trying to return to a previous base. He's just playing a mind game.

[afaber12]

 

Of course, a runner cannot return beyond his occupied base (take a lead to the wrong side). And the applicable rule is 7.01 Comment. The penalty is not specified in the rule itself so you have to find an authoritative interpretation. You can find one in the Jaksa/Roder book and also in Carl Childress' BRD. The J/R says:

 

"Once a pitcher is in-contact with the rubber a runner, regardless of purpose, may not return beyond his occupied base." (p. 50, 2010 edition)

 

The BRD shows a concurring opinion from Jim Evans. Then Mr. Childress adds this note: "all authorities agree on one point: If a runner tries to return to a previous base after the pitcher has the ball on the rubber, the runner is out."

 

But he's not trying to return to a previous base. He's just playing a mind game.

 

 

That there sounds like another way of saying "... for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game." If he wants to go in reverse, he can moonwalk all the way to the dugout because he's out.

[Senor Azul]

Did you notice in the Jaksa/Roder interpretation the words "regardless of purpose"? I also cited Evans and Childress who agree with the J/R interpretation. Due to time constraints yesterday I did not post the interpretation from the Wendelstedt manual. But since you still are not convinced, here is his:

 

If a runner acquires title to a base and the pitcher assumes his pitching position on the rubber, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base. If he attempts to return, he will be called out for running the bases in reverse order."

 

The rule Wendelstedt cites is 7.08i which states:

 

After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call "Time" and declare the runner out.

[Replacematt]

What if he walks the bases in reverse order?

[Jocko]

What if he walks the bases in reverse order?

he's out in short order

[DVA7130]

In the OP the runner never "attempts to return".

I have nothing except the tag on a fly as previously covered.

[Jocko]

In the OP the runner never "attempts to return".

I have nothing except the tag on a fly as previously covered.

Once a pitcher is in-contact with the rubber a runner, regardless of purpose, may not return beyond his occupied base." (p. 50, 2010 edition)

 

[Rich Ives]

There is no attempt to return.

 

I can't imagine why the defense would be confused.  Thinking "you dumb sh!t" maybe - but not confused.

[maven]

There is no attempt to return.

 

I can't imagine why the defense would be confused.  Thinking "you dumb sh!t" maybe - but not confused.

 

Right. If R2 goes all the way back to 1B, then he's out under 7.01CMT. Leading off that way is (by itself) nothing.

 

Except dumb.

[DVA7130]

"Listen coach, they are putting themselves at a disadvantage, so quit trying to make something of it. Just smile to yourself when they are called out at third because of the extra distance ".

[Senor Azul]

The "skunk in the outfield" play was mentioned in post number 3 of this thread. A runner leading off in the wrong direction is not legal even in this "youth league junk" (as Carl Childress calls it).

 

Here's the official interpretation for Fed from B. Elliot Hopkins dated 2000:

 

The "skunk in the outfield" is legal. A runner may lead off any way he likes TOWARD THE NEXT BASE and is not guilty of an infraction...

 

The official OBR interpretation is from Mike Fitzpatrick dated November 2001:

 

As long as a runner has safely acquired a base, he may lead off TOWARD THE NEXT BASE however he pleases...

 

You may find the full text of these interpretations in the 2014 edition of Carl Childress' BRD under the heading of Runner: Establishes Base Path.

 

 

 

[maven]

The "skunk in the outfield" play was mentioned in post number 3 of this thread. A runner leading off in the wrong direction is not legal even in this "youth league junk" (as Carl Childress calls it).

 

Here's the official interpretation for Fed from B. Elliot Hopkins dated 2000:

 

The "skunk in the outfield" is legal. A runner may lead off any way he likes TOWARD THE NEXT BASE and is not guilty of an infraction...

 

The official OBR interpretation is from Mike Fitzpatrick dated November 2001:

 

As long as a runner has safely acquired a base, he may lead off TOWARD THE NEXT BASE however he pleases...

 

You may find the full text of these interpretations in the 2014 edition of Carl Childress' BRD under the heading of Runner: Establishes Base Path.

 

It does not follow from these that leading off in the other direction is illegal. These rulings clarify the legality of skunk.

 

I could also say that it is legal to lead off any distance up to 12 feet from the base (which is true). It does not follow that leading off 13 feet from the base is illegal.