Abandonment

[maven]

Rather than tack on to an overly long thread, I thought I'd post this play for discussion in a new thread.
 

R3 one out. The batter grounds out for the 2nd out of the inning. R3, thinking there were two outs, heads for (and enters) his dugout on the 3rd base side.

Do you:

a. Score the run and wait for an appeal on R3 missing the plate, or
b. Call R3 out for abandonment?

Of course the answer is b. It is not a missed base appeal because the runner never got to the base to begin with.

Now take the same play, but this time R3 takes off for home on the ground ball, slides in 1" short of the plate and heads for his dugout, thinking he has touched the plate. What do you do now? The answer is the same thing (call the runner out for abandonment without an appeal), because it is the same rule, and it applies equally whether the runner is 89 feet or one inch from the plate.

I don't agree with this ruling. When R3 slides in just short of the base, pops up, and heads off toward the dugout, I will rule that he has passed the base and thus acquired it, pending a properly constituted appeal from the defense.

 

If his dugout is on the 1B side, he WILL IN FACT physically pass the base. Perhaps if his dugout is on the 3B side, he might not physically pass the base on his way to the dugout. It is arbitrary and capricious to allow the side of a team's dugout to dictate an application of the rules: if one side has passed the base, then so has the other.

 

The first case is useful for illustrating the concept of abandonment and the kind of play where one would declare a runner out for it.

[Jglopez7]

We had an abandonment situation Saturday...runner slid into 2nd and was called safe by the base umpire...the running thinking he was out starts trotting towards his 3rd base dugout....his coach yells STAY ON THIRD he then jumps on 3rd base.....the runner did not cross foul territory nor did the 3rd base coach assist him (which I was looking for being the home plate umpire). Defensive coach wants an out call for abandonment. Of course he argues with the base umpire not me....runner stayed on 3rd and of course scores on a passed ball next pitch.

[JaxRolo]

We had an abandonment situation Saturday...runner slid into 2nd and was called safe by the base umpire...the running thinking he was out starts trotting towards his 3rd base dugout....his coach yells STAY ON THIRD he then jumps on 3rd base.....the runner did not cross foul territory nor did the 3rd base coach assist him (which I was looking for being the home plate umpire). Defensive coach wants an out call for abandonment. Of course he argues with the base umpire not me....runner stayed on 3rd and of course scores on a passed ball next pitch.

Good call

[Jocko]

We had an abandonment situation Saturday...runner slid into 2nd and was called safe by the base umpire...the running thinking he was out starts trotting towards his 3rd base dugout....his coach yells STAY ON THIRD he then jumps on 3rd base.....the runner did not cross foul territory nor did the 3rd base coach assist him (which I was looking for being the home plate umpire). Defensive coach wants an out call for abandonment. Of course he argues with the base umpire not me....runner stayed on 3rd and of course scores on a passed ball next pitch.

Good callor, more appropriately, good NO call. Interesting idea for a new thread....

[Dash Riprock]

Rather than tack on to an overly long thread, I thought I'd post this play for discussion in a new thread.

 

R3 one out. The batter grounds out for the 2nd out of the inning. R3, thinking there were two outs, heads for (and enters) his dugout on the 3rd base side.

Do you:

a. Score the run and wait for an appeal on R3 missing the plate, or

b. Call R3 out for abandonment?

Of course the answer is b. It is not a missed base appeal because the runner never got to the base to begin with.

Now take the same play, but this time R3 takes off for home on the ground ball, slides in 1" short of the plate and heads for his dugout, thinking he has touched the plate. What do you do now? The answer is the same thing (call the runner out for abandonment without an appeal), because it is the same rule, and it applies equally whether the runner is 89 feet or one inch from the plate.

I don't agree with this ruling. When R3 slides in just short of the base, pops up, and heads off toward the dugout, I will rule that he has passed the base and thus acquired it, pending a properly constituted appeal from the defense.

 

If his dugout is on the 1B side, he WILL IN FACT physically pass the base. Perhaps if his dugout is on the 3B side, he might not physically pass the base on his way to the dugout. It is arbitrary and capricious to allow the side of a team's dugout to dictate an application of the rules: if one side has passed the base, then so has the other.

 

The first case is useful for illustrating the concept of abandonment and the kind of play where one would declare a runner out for it.

At what point is the runner 'close enough' to the plate for you to consider him having passed it?  IOW, at which point in the baseline does the abandonment rule get replaced by the missed base appeal rule?  That would be arbitrary and capricious.

[maven]

At what point is the runner 'close enough' to the plate for you to consider him having passed it?  IOW, at which point in the baseline does the abandonment rule get replaced by the missed base appeal rule?  That would be arbitrary and capricious.

I dunno, what do you think? Close enough to fool the defense? Close enough to slide? Since the rules don't say, I suppose we get to use our good judgment, at least until some authority determines that this play happens so often we need a case play to settle the matter.

 

That's a judgment call, but not therefore arbitrary and capricious. It's arbitrary and capricious when a team gets an advantage because we interpret the rules based on the placement of their dugout, or the color of their uniforms, or some such consideration completely unrelated to the rules or the game.

 

But you know that, Dash.

[mstaylor]

Consider him as passed a base when he does it. If he doesn't pass then you can't rule he did. Now if he slides that close, I feel confident he was over or beside it while getting up.

[Dash Riprock]

 

At what point is the runner 'close enough' to the plate for you to consider him having passed it?  IOW, at which point in the baseline does the abandonment rule get replaced by the missed base appeal rule?  That would be arbitrary and capricious.

I dunno, what do you think? Close enough to fool the defense? Close enough to slide? Since the rules don't say, I suppose we get to use our good judgment, at least until some authority determines that this play happens so often we need a case play to settle the matter.

 

________________

 

Sure they do.  The abandonment rule is quite clear, and there is nothing in there that says the rule ceases to apply when the runner is close enough to the plate to fool the defense or to slide.  That part is not subject to judgment.

 

If you are going to render a judgment that you know is wrong (judging that the runner passed the plate when he did not), it would be far better to judge that he touched the plate (and deny the missed base appeal) than to uphold an appeal on something that is not appealable.  Now you are misapplying a rule as well as delivering a dishonest judgment.

 

[Thunderheads]

WHOA, ...it's a dash-riprock sighting!!

 

WELCOME!!

[Dash Riprock]

Thanks Jeff.

[Thunderheads]

Thanks Jeff.

Your welcome!  Glad to see you've ventured from the 'dark side'?

 

You'll enjoy it over here, ... always interesting and spirited, but rarely condescending!

[Dash Riprock]

Maybe I shouldn't have registered using my real name.