Jump to content

Out of Baseline No Call


stkjock
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2106 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Play from the Cinny game last night - MLB OBR says the dirt path is 6' wide with the foul line in the middle - this field doesn't appear to conform to those dimensions from the view shown in the video

 

however, even if the dirt is only 4', seems to me Hamilton's jump back to avoid the tag is well over a 3' move from his path, unless one says since he was stationary, that the jump back then restablished the path once he makes the step to thrid?

 

 

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=23776659

 

 

seems to me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's close.  Part of this is that I've never seen a definition of what body part(s) to consider when making the determination. In the video, if you go from the foot farthest foul (left) at the start to the foot least foul (right) at the end, it might not be 3'.

And, too, the actual implementation of the rule is usually not a strict 3' determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It's close.  Part of this is that I've never seen a definition of what body part(s) to consider when making the determination. In the video, if you go from the foot farthest foul (left) at the start to the foot least foul (right) at the end, it might not be 3'.

And, too, the actual implementation of the rule is usually not a strict 3' determination.

yes, step and reach, by that determination, I'd say no call appropriate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stkjock said:

yes, step and reach, by that determination, I'd say no call appropriate 

That term is part of the interp of a batted ball passing "by or through" a fielder. AFAIK it does not pertain to this call.

A step and reach for me is nearer to 9 feet than to 3 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, maven said:

That term is part of the interp of a batted ball passing "by or through" a fielder. AFAIK it does not pertain to this call.

isn't there a similar term/phrase that pertains to this call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maven said:

Not that I know. Because the rule says "three feet," not a lot of interp is needed.

Some is, for the reasons noumpere mentioned.

thanks for clearing that up 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (section 8.4.2.a, p, 157):

"Whether the runner is out of his basepath is determined by the amount of distance he moves from the moment the tag attempt is made, not the distance he avoids the tag by. It often occurs that a runner ends up more than three feet away from the tag, but moves less than that when the tag attempt was actually made. In this case the runner would not be called out. It’s also possible for the runner to be out of the basepath and still have a tag applied to him. When determining whether the runner is out of the basepath, use the center of his body to measure from the moment of the tag attempt, and the same to determine his position after he moves."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a partner use "step and a reach" when a coach argued his out of the base path call.  The coach wasn't happy with the explanation because he said that's not in the rulebook.  My partner was pretty green so I intervened in the argument and told the coach that he was correct, but that umpires use "step and a reach" to approximate 3 feet.  He accepted the explanation and we got the game going again.  Just another case where using something other than rulebook terminology can get you in trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Bill Welke just called Trevor Story out on a out of the BL tag by F3 Flores attempt that seemed to see Story move less that the video above 

 

will post vid as soon as I see it posted.  I’m sure Gil will have something on it as Manger got tossed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that cool @Gil - thanks for adding that

 

reading over your ejection post, I'm confused - you state he appeared to deviate more than 3' yet say the call was incorrect?

 

Quote

 Story's waist appeared to have deviated by more than three feet from this direct path to first base as he avoided Flores' tag and lunged back into the base from the right-field side of the bag, the call was incorrect.^ At the time of the ejection, the Mets were leading, 3-1. The Mets ultimately won the contest, 12-2.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2018 at 10:48 AM, stkjock said:

- MLB OBR says the dirt path is 6' wide with the foul line in the middle -

2.01:

The grass lines and dimensions shown on the diagrams are those used in many fields, but they are not mandatory and each club shall determine the size and shape of the grassed and bare areas of its playing field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...