ATL@WAS Baseline

[Larry in TN]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v453871383/

Why is this not running out of the baseline?  Sure looks like more than 3' on the replay from the outfield 3BL camera.

Gotta love the announcer, "He has every right to run out of the baseline to avoid the tag!"

 

[johnnyg08]

Seemed like the runner was already past the point of the tag to be in violation of the 3' rule.  

Excellent example!  nice find! 

[basejester]

Close.  See attached.

 

[Richvee]

Again, the interpretation/application of this rule eludes me. Watching the video, specifically  the replay from the RF line camera. R3's right foot is about 3" off the foul line when F2 has the ball and starts his tag attempt. Next time R3's right foot hits the ground it's a good foot/foot and a half into the grass beyond the dirt running track, with F2's entire upper body and outstretched arm in foul territory and still not able to reach R3.  What am I missing?

[Rich Ives]

He didn't go 3' from HIS basepath. He only took one step to the side.

[ricka56]

What am I missing?

1. The on-line umpire crowd will always agree with the MLB umpire on his OOBP call/non-call;
2. When MLBU doesn't call OOBP, the on-line crowd will say the defense wasn't close enough to make a tag attempt when he altered his path (catch-22 for the defense - as long the runner avoids a tag, the defense was never close enough to make a tag attempt, so the runner can never be called for OOBP);
3. When MLPU calls OOBP, the on-line crowd will say that he obviously did move more than 3 feet to avoid the tag. .

[Richvee]

He didn't go 3' from HIS basepath. He only took one step to the side.

2 steps. F2 fields the ball and makes a move towards, R3, R3's right foot is right next to the foul line. TWO steps later, F2's upper body and outstretched arm is in foul territory and he still can't reach R3. 

[UMP45]

Do not, I repeat, do not use the foul line to judge BASE PATH. The runner establishes his base path. On this play the catcher is diving to try and tag the runner. You have to judge where the tag attempt starts. And if you notice the runner changes his base path before the catcher attempts a play on the runner. IMHO.

 

[basejester]

I don't think there's a significant difference between the basepath and the foul line on this play.  The runner is on the foul line and any deviation he makes from that is an attempt to avoid the tag, IMHO.

Edited September 6, 2015 by basejester

[Rich Ives]

2 steps. F2 fields the ball and makes a move towards, R3, R3's right foot is right next to the foul line. TWO steps later, F2's upper body and outstretched arm is in foul territory and he still can't reach R3. 

My view: At the moment F2 secures the ball R3's LEFT foot is about 1' into foul territory. The tag attempt cannot start until F2 has the ball. R3 then twists to the side and his right foot comes down at the grass line. Not a 3' violation. (And F2 would most likely have missed even without the dodge).

[jpperez14]

By this angle and trying to compare it with the other shot. It looks @‌ the time of attempted tag, he was a foot or so off the line. The last photo I believe shows that he was past F2 already and that's when he is farther out. I feel it was a good 'no call'.

[basejester]

I think he's still on the line when the ball is secured.  You might argue that the tag attempt hasn't started yet at that point. 

[ElkOil]

I think there is some serious hair-splitting on this one.  From my vantage point, the runner clearly went three feet out of his path to avoid the tag.  Judging it as anything else is justifying a bad call, in my opinion.

[johnnyg08]

And if you notice the runner changes his base path before the catcher attempts a play on the runner. IMHO.

 

I wouldn't have been shocked had there been an out here.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

No one has asked (so I will) Why the runner (Escobar??) was not charged with interference for wrapping his arm around the pitchers leg after the ball got away and headed for the dugout ? 

[ElkOil]

No one has asked (so I will) Why the runner (Escobar??) was not charged with interference for wrapping his arm around the pitchers leg after the ball got away and headed for the dugout ? 

It didn't look like he hindered him at all.

[basejester]

 

Gotta love the announcer, "He has every right to run out of the baseline to avoid the tag!"

 

Yeah, who had him in the announce fantasy league? 

[Richvee]

either call is defendable I believe..it's that close, as evident by us using stop frame photos here to decide. In real time I thought he went 3+ feet. 

I was watching the game.. Got a good chuckle out of FP Santangello's comment about R3 having every right to run more than 3 feet outside. 

He's by far one of the worst. 

[ricka56]

3 feet is the length from chest center to the outstretched arm/fingers (you can measure it on yourself). 
If runner started to avoid the tag just off the foul line,

Then F2's chest center/glove tip gives a good reference of what is allowed and what is greater than 3 feet.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Richvee]

So here's a serious question. When they say a runner is allowed 3 feet, what exactly are we "measuring"? What I mean is,  Is a runner legal if his feet go more than 3 feet off the base path but he contorts his body so that his torso is less than 3 feet away from where his feet started? i.e. Does every part of his body need to be 3 feet away from where it was at the time of the tag attempt for him to be considered out of his base path?

Edited September 8, 2015 by Richvee

[ricka56]

So here's a serious question. When they say a runner is allowed 3 feet, what exactly are we "measuring"? What I mean is,  Is a runner legal if his feet go more than 3 feet off the base path but he contorts his body so that his torso is less than 3 feet away from where his feet started? i.e. Does every part of his body need to be 3 feet away from where it was at the time of the tag attempt for him to be considered out of his base path?

I can't remember where I was it and it was a long time ago. It was a MLB  play at 1B. Someone in an official capacity said the OOBP call was correct because the foot he uses to turn back towards the base was outside the 3 feet allowed. Part of his body was borderline compliant, but his plant foot to turn back was definately out of compliance....similar to this play.