Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Joe

Base path

Question

Guest Joe

If the shortstop gets a ground ball and the runner on 2nd takes off for 3rd, and the shortstop tries to tag the runner going to 3rd and the runner goes out of the base path to avoid the tag and the shortstop dives and the ball comes out. Isn’t the runner still out for going out of the base path?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Yes, as long as it is judged as an attempted tag and that runner deviated from his base path more than 3 feet. The ball is live so odds are other runners are going to be safe wherever they are headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0

Provided the runner goes more than three feet, and provided the runner did indeed move that three+ feet to avoid the tag, yes - .

With the ball being hit to F6 (the shortstop), it's also common for the runner to run several feet behind him to avoid interference - ie. to let him play the ball.   At that point, if F6 turns around and dives at R2 that could easily be ruled as nothing and the runner would be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To clarity a little. For the runner to be called out for being out of the basepath, he must deviate 3+ feet from a straight line between him and the base he is going to WHEN THE TAG ATTEMPT OCCURS. In other words, if the runner is running 5 feet behind F6 when F6 fields the ball, and R2 keeps on that path to 3B while F6 dives at him and misses, the runner IS NOT out of the basepath. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Suppose (for fun) that F6 fields the ball in a direct line between 2B and 3B, and that R2 is running along the same direct line.  As F6 reaches toward R2, with the ball in his bare hand and his bare hand inside his glove, R2 goes around F6 to the glove side.  F6 swings his glove toward R2, but pulls the bare hand out to make a throw in an attempt to retire another runner.

Obviously, a tag with the empty glove would not have legally retired R2; does this fact have any relevance on the out-of-basepath ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, CJK said:

Suppose (for fun) that F6 fields the ball in a direct line between 2B and 3B, and that R2 is running along the same direct line.  As F6 reaches toward R2, with the ball in his bare hand and his bare hand inside his glove, R2 goes around F6 to the glove side.  F6 swings his glove toward R2, but pulls the bare hand out to make a throw in an attempt to retire another runner.

Obviously, a tag with the empty glove would not have legally retired R2; does this fact have any relevance on the out-of-basepath ruling?

Well, it's not a tag attempt, so there's no restriction on where R2 may run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Well, it's not a tag attempt, so there's no restriction on where R2 may run.

If I were the offensive coach, this is what I would say about it.  But if I'm the defensive coach, I'm going to say that there was a tag attempt, when the hands were together, and the runner ran around it.  Or are you saying that it stops being a tag attempt when the ball comes out of the glove, so as long as he doesn't run 3 feet out of the way until after that, he's fine?

The picture I have in my head is the situation where the fielder is moving toward the runner with his hands together, and the runner does a "dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge" move (either the "suck in your gut" variant, or the "pull away and arch your back" variant, like that Stuart kid from MadTV).  Rather than stop his momentum, turn his body, keep his hands together, and chase a runner that he believes has deviated, the fielder extends his glove (a good demonstration that the deviation is more than 3 feet) but continues to make the next play.

Maybe you had the same picture, and that's fine.  I just wanted to be certain.  I wish I had a good video clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, CJK said:

If I were the offensive coach, this is what I would say about it.  But if I'm the defensive coach, I'm going to say that there was a tag attempt, when the hands were together, and the runner ran around it.  Or are you saying that it stops being a tag attempt when the ball comes out of the glove, so as long as he doesn't run 3 feet out of the way until after that, he's fine?

The picture I have in my head is the situation where the fielder is moving toward the runner with his hands together, and the runner does a "dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge" move (either the "suck in your gut" variant, or the "pull away and arch your back" variant, like that Stuart kid from MadTV).  Rather than stop his momentum, turn his body, keep his hands together, and chase a runner that he believes has deviated, the fielder extends his glove (a good demonstration that the deviation is more than 3 feet) but continues to make the next play.

Maybe you had the same picture, and that's fine.  I just wanted to be certain.  I wish I had a good video clip.

Swinging an empty glove at a runner (as was the example given) is not a tag attempt.  And believing he has deviated doesn't mean the umpire agrees or even that there was actually an illegal deviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Swinging an empty glove at a runner (as was the example given) is not a tag attempt.

On its own, of course not.  But the example also started with a tag attempt (ball in hand, hand in glove); the extension of the empty glove was a follow up action.

And I know the fielder's belief doesn't matter in the judgment, but the demonstration of the distance deviated is valuable.

Again, not an argument or a disagreement.  Just making sure we have the same situation in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
41 minutes ago, CJK said:

If I were the offensive coach, this is what I would say about it.  But if I'm the defensive coach, I'm going to say that there was a tag attempt, when the hands were together, and the runner ran around it.  Or are you saying that it stops being a tag attempt when the ball comes out of the glove, so as long as he doesn't run 3 feet out of the way until after that, he's fine?

The picture I have in my head is the situation where the fielder is moving toward the runner with his hands together, and the runner does a "dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge" move (either the "suck in your gut" variant, or the "pull away and arch your back" variant, like that Stuart kid from MadTV).  Rather than stop his momentum, turn his body, keep his hands together, and chase a runner that he believes has deviated, the fielder extends his glove (a good demonstration that the deviation is more than 3 feet) but continues to make the next play.

Maybe you had the same picture, and that's fine.  I just wanted to be certain.  I wish I had a good video clip.

I stand by my answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Well, it's not a tag attempt, so there's no restriction on where R2 may run.

wrinkle me this Batman... could such action in fact then be OBS on F6 if he impedes R2?  now practically I realize, any such impediment likely would not change R2's final placement at 3rd, however one could envision a far out happenstance where R2 is knocked down, then F6 throws the ball away (stays in play).... etc etc...

 

yes, I'm a bit bored at the office today :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, stkjock said:

wrinkle me this Batman... could such action in fact then be OBS on F6 if he impedes R2?  now practically I realize, any such impediment likely would not change R2's final placement at 3rd, however one could envision a far out happenstance where R2 is knocked down, then F6 throws the ball away (stays in play).... etc etc...

 

yes, I'm a bit bored at the office today :) 

The usual interp says that it's "impossible" for a player with the ball to commit OBS (that comes from the rule definition that OBS is "by a player without the ball."

Some, including me, would argue that there could be some sort of third-world play (defense on the ground with the ball and sticks out a leg to trip the passing runner, for example) where the literal rule should not be used and we could have OBS.  That's not likely in the current play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×