Crazy Base Running - Tons to keep your eye on as an Umpire

[stkjock]

 

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

That's awesome. And perfectly legal.

[Velho]

2 outs.  😶 Every Pirate involved had a baseball IQ of 0 on that play.

[noumpere]

Coach always said, "never run into a tag out."  And, I saw more than one player benched over doing that during my umpire career.

[agdz59]

28 minutes ago, Velho said:

2 outs.  😶 Every Pirate involved had a baseball IQ of 0 on that play.

I'm watching that thinking "Wait, why didn't he step on first base?!?" 

[Velho]

Raises an intersting question: at what point would Javy be out for abandonment? When he crosses back over home plate?

 

8 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Coach always said, "never run into a tag out."  And, I saw more than one player benched over doing that during my umpire career.

I'm with that. Especially if other team doesn't know the rules. Tagging a forced runner is still a force.

That runner coming home meant nothing. Pirates willingly joined the circus on that play.

[stkjock]

https://www.closecallsports.com/2021/05/running-batter-back-to-home-plate.html

[jms1425]

20 hours ago, Velho said:

Raises an intersting question: at what point would Javy be out for abandonment? When he crosses back over home plate?

Given the way this play happened, the answer is never. Abandonment only applies to runners who have touched first base.

Rule 5.09(b)(2): Any runner is out when: 

After touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

He would be out by rule for retreating beyond home plate.

From the 2014 edition of the PBUC (p. 84):

In situations where the batter-runner gets into a rundown between first and home, if the batter-runner retreats and reaches home plate, he shall be declared out.

Thanks, Senor Azul, for the interp reference:

 

 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, jms1425 said:

Rule 5.09(b)(2): Any runner is out when: 

After touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

🤔 Then what rule gets an out on untagged U3K when they simply walk away? (not fighting, curious)

[noumpere]

58 minutes ago, Velho said:

🤔 Then what rule gets an out on untagged U3K when they simply walk away? (not fighting, curious)

5.05: When a Batter Becomes A Runner:

Rule 5.05(a)(2) Comment: A batter who does not realize his
situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the
process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he
leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.

 

Abandonment is part of  5.09(b) Any Runner is Out When (emphasis added):

(2) After touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously
abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

 

[Velho]

42 minutes ago, noumpere said:

5.05: When a Batter Becomes A Runner:

Rule 5.05(a)(2) Comment: A batter who does not realize his
situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the
process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he
leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.

So same thing, just not called "abandonment". Got it. Thanks.

[The Man in Blue]

I haven't read the Close Call article yet, but I have him out, even in OBR.

5.09(b)(1)

Quote

 

(b) Retiring a Runner

Any runner is out when: (1)  He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or

 

 

Nothing says the three feet must be perpendicular to the runner's path.  A batter runner cannot run safely to home.  As soon as he retreated 3 feet from the tag attempt, I have him out.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I haven't read the Close Call article yet, but I have him out, even in OBR.

5.09(b)(1)

 

Nothing says the three feet must be perpendicular to the runner's path.  A batter runner cannot run safely to home.  As soon as he retreated 3 feet from the tag attempt, I have him out.

Good point. I believe Softball uses it. Baseball doesn't but I know how you despise interps and prefer the rules to be written properly. 

[Velho]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I haven't read the Close Call article yet, but I have him out, even in OBR.

5.09(b)(1)

 

Nothing says the three feet must be perpendicular to the runner's path.  A batter runner cannot run safely to home.  As soon as he retreated 3 feet from the tag attempt, I have him out.

Interesting. Not a two way line since only 1B can be a destination. What say you @Gil? Is the MLB Umpire Manual guidance even necessary?

[The Man in Blue]

22 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Good point. I believe Softball uses it. Baseball doesn't but I know how you despise interps and prefer the rules to be written properly. 

 Seems the rule is written properly to me.  They just didn't think to apply it.  😁

Softball codes (I am going to speak in general because I don't have my books handy) do specifically have a clause about a runner retreating back towards home rather than relying on the possible use of the "out of the basepath" rule.

I am really curious what the thoughts on this are going to be!

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 Seems the rule is written properly to me.  They just didn't think to apply it.  😁

Softball codes (I am going to speak in general because I don't have my books handy) do specifically have a clause about a runner retreating back towards home rather than relying on the possible use of the "out of the basepath" rule.

I am really curious what the thoughts on this are going to be!

My thought is you want to be contrary.

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Jimurray said:

My thought is you want to be contrary.

 

Well, that is  my title.  😁

No, seriously -- I'm curious what mental gymnastics are going to be used to say that the "out of base path" rule is not applicable to a batter runner retreating to a place he has no legal standing to retreat to.

I can appreciate that many softball codes have a specific rule spelled out, but I don't believe that it is necessary for them to do so.

[Replacematt]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 Seems the rule is written properly to me.  They just didn't think to apply it.  😁

Softball codes (I am going to speak in general because I don't have my books handy) do specifically have a clause about a runner retreating back towards home rather than relying on the possible use of the "out of the basepath" rule.

I am really curious what the thoughts on this are going to be!

It's not written properly by your standards, because the intent is to allow retreating (as evidenced by the MLBUM.) 

Also, by your logic, a runner trying to return to a base from which they were forced would have to be called out if they run more than three feet in that direction.

[The Man in Blue]

I respectfully disagree ... if the intent was allow retreating, there would be no rules limiting where a runner can run (which many are arguing here ... Baez could have run up to the upper deck and grabbed a hot dog at the concession stand on the third base side as long as he didn't touch home plate).  At minimum, the basepath rule would be written to say "three feet perpendicular to the base path" if retreating for no legal reason was allowed.

I do not understand why people, especially umpires, want to interpret rules to allow stupid sh!t that has no place in the game ... Baez's stunt, running the bases in reverse order (which, one could argue Baez did SINCE it did confuse the defense, ergo he is out on that one), goofy pitching moves, etc.

By my logic, yes, I am OK with calling out ANY runner avoiding a tag by retreating to base they have no legal right to occupy.  The rule states the basepath is " ... is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely."  If you cannot attain a safe position, you cannot go there to avoid a tag.

[Replacematt]

14 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I respectfully disagree ... if the intent was allow retreating, there would be no rules limiting where a runner can run (which many are arguing here ... Baez could have run up to the upper deck and grabbed a hot dog at the concession stand on the third base side as long as he didn't touch home plate).  At minimum, the basepath rule would be written to say "three feet perpendicular to the base path" if retreating for no legal reason was allowed.

I do not understand why people, especially umpires, want to interpret rules to allow stupid sh!t that has no place in the game ... Baez's stunt, running the bases in reverse order (which, one could argue Baez did SINCE it did confuse the defense, ergo he is out on that one), goofy pitching moves, etc.

By my logic, yes, I am OK with calling out ANY runner avoiding a tag by retreating to base they have no legal right to occupy.  The rule states the basepath is " ... is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely."  If you cannot attain a safe position, you cannot go there to avoid a tag.

The very entity that wrote the rules provides the interpretations. Your whole argument as that this is not the intent is belied by that.

[umpstu]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I respectfully disagree ... if the intent was allow retreating, there would be no rules limiting where a runner can run (which many are arguing here ... Baez could have run up to the upper deck and grabbed a hot dog at the concession stand on the third base side as long as he didn't touch home plate).  At minimum, the basepath rule would be written to say "three feet perpendicular to the base path" if retreating for no legal reason was allowed.

I do not understand why people, especially umpires, want to interpret rules to allow stupid sh!t that has no place in the game ... Baez's stunt, running the bases in reverse order (which, one could argue Baez did SINCE it did confuse the defense, ergo he is out on that one), goofy pitching moves, etc.

By my logic, yes, I am OK with calling out ANY runner avoiding a tag by retreating to base they have no legal right to occupy.  The rule states the basepath is " ... is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely."  If you cannot attain a safe position, you cannot go there to avoid a tag.

So runners in a rundown would be out if they retreat?  Because they do retreat, just like Baez did, which is legal.  According to the rules.

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, umpstu said:

So runners in a rundown would be out if they retreat?  Because they do retreat, just like Baez did, which is legal.  According to the rules.

 

No.  A runner in a rundown (who is not forced) can still reach either base (where he came from or where he is headed to) to be safe.  Both the base in front of them or the base behind them are in play.  The rule clearly states this.  This reinforces the point Baez should have been ruled out: there is only one place he can reach a base safely.

Now, I imagine somebody will say, "What if a runner is in a rundown between second and third, but there is a runner already on third?"  Well, I am glad you asked.  Third base is occupied, but it may not be occupied by the time the runner gets there, so the runner could still "reach safely."

There is no way for Baez to "reach safely" any place other than first base. 

Let's break this down ...

Baez was a runner.

Could he go to first base?  Yes.  He could attempt to reach first safely.

Could he go to home plate?  No, he cannot reach home safely.

Could he go to second base?  Could he go to third base?  No and no.

His basepath is a straight line from him "to the base he is attempting to reach safely."  It is established when the tag attempt occurs.

When the tag is attempted, he has three feet leeway along a straight line from where he is to first base -- NO other place.

Did he go beyond three feet off of that line?  Yes.

 

(b) Retiring a Runner

Any runner is out when: (1)  He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

The very entity that wrote the rules provides the interpretations. Your whole argument as that this is not the intent is belied by that.

 

EDIT: Comment redacted as I am not attempting to re-litigate my contempt for "rules" found outside the rulebook.  Let's focus on the play at hand.

[beerguy55]

On 5/28/2021 at 7:47 PM, Jimurray said:

Good point. I believe Softball uses it. Baseball doesn't but I know how you despise interps and prefer the rules to be written properly. 

Softball doesn't even need three feet...it's any retreat towards home to avoid or delay a tag...it's treated as INT...b/r out, runners return TOP.

 

On 5/29/2021 at 3:48 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Baez was a runner.

Could he go to first base?  Yes.  He could attempt to reach first safely.

Could he go to home plate?  No, he cannot reach home safely.

Could he go to second base?  Could he go to third base?  No and no.

His basepath is a straight line from him "to the base he is attempting to reach safely."  It is established when the tag attempt occurs.

When the tag is attempted, he has three feet leeway along a straight line from where he is to first base -- NO other place.

Did he go beyond three feet off of that line?  Yes.

 

(b) Retiring a Runner

Any runner is out when: (1)  He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;

Technically, what you're describing is a line segment...a line goes infinitely in both directions, a line segment has endpoints....so, his path continues on the line, even behind where he is currently standing...the rules cover other limitations or boundaries where you are no longer able to travel along the line (even though it's still there) - eg. crossing home plate, or going into DBT...but the three feet rule is reserved is left or right of the line...not behind the point.

Otherwise, you'd be calling R1 out for retreating three feet to first to avoid a tag from F4 and give B/R more time.

You'd also have to judge when the tag attempt occurs...F3 made no real tag attempt here, so did Baez retreat three feet to avoid a tag, or delay a tag??  And would it then qualify, even if your interpretation prevailed?

Softball's "retreat to home" rule specifically mentions "avoid or delay" for that reason...and doesn't need three feet...doesn't even need three inches.

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Then it is a line segment as the base path is expressly defined between two finite points: where the runner is at the tag attempt and the base he attempting to reach safely.

Geometric transgressions aside ...  😉

As for a tag attempt, I’m not sure what else I would consider the fielder to be doing if he left the base towards the runner with the ball in his glove (moving towards the runner).

A question on another level; one I have hinted at before:  Why do we want to perform such mental gymnastics to allow stupidity like this in the game?  Seriously ... look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face “Yes, the creators and governing bodies of the sport want things like this to be allowed.”