Out of the baseline plays to home plate

[rhanna]

Why do plays at home plate seem to grant the runner greater leeway with the baseline?  Apologies for the wordiness, but I'm trying to understand this play in all its details.

As I understand the rule, putting it into my own words, the baseline is established as a direct path to the base for the runner when a fielder attempts to make a play*.  The runner is given 3ft to either side of the direct path to the base based on their position when a play is attempted.  

It is not uncommon for a runner to then run around the catcher and attempt to score by diving back to the base.   You never see this play at any other base. 

I have heard it said that "at home, the runner can go wherever they want."  This is obviously not true, but it does seem that there is more leeway at home.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities here (and both might be partially true):

1) Umpires tend to give runners a little more leeway in enforcement on this at home simply because plays at home plate tend to be treated a bit differently than other bases.  Obstruction call tend to be treated a little differently as well.  The rules are mostly the same, but the dynamics of plays at home seem to result in different enforcement.

2)  Many players coming in to score are already several feet off the foul line because of their turn around 3rd base.  Catchers tend to receive the throw on the foul line.  With the player already off the foul line, there is a decent amount of room within their 3ft allowance from the direct base path to get around a catcher that is approximately on the foul line.   

Thinking about this a little more, it occurs to me that the tag play at home is the only tag play where there is a visual reference for the base path (which is not the runner's baseline).  Catchers are more likely to orient themselves on the visual reference foul line than they are to orient themselves on the runners actual baseline (e.g., path to the plate).  Since the runner is already 3 ft off the foul line (or more) and the catcher is not in the center of their direct path to the plate, then an extra 3 feet might be enough to a) get around the catcher, b) not exceed the 3ft limit, and c) look as if the runner has gone far out of the base path.  You don't see this play at 2nd base, for example, where runners are also not on a direct line between first and second because, without the visual reference, the fielder is more likely to orient themselves directly to the incoming runner and 3ft is not really enough to get around a tag from a fielder directly in the runner's baseline.

 

* When exactly does the baseline get established?  The rules say: "A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely"   Assume that the fielder has the ball well ahead of the runner, say, 10 ft.  The fielder obviously cannot make a tag from this distance.  Is the baseline established only when the runner is close enough to the fielder for a tag to actually take place, or does the "tag attempt" begin as soon as the fielder has the ball with the intention to tag the oncoming runner?   

** The rules say that running more than 3ft away means the runner is out.  I think this would be based on the runners feet, but I am not certain.  On the play at home that we're discussing, the feet are often the furthest away because the runner is leaning towards home plate as they circle around the catcher.  Thus, frequently, their upper half may be within the 3ft but their lower half may not.  Does this matter?  I know umpires aren't out their with a yard stick, but do thy use the feet to establish "3 ft" or just generally "the player's body and its a judgment call." ?

[RBIbaseball]

22 hours ago, rhanna said:

Why do plays at home plate seem to grant the runner greater leeway with the baseline?  

 

The rules don't support a difference into home plate (concerning out of the baseline infractions), nor do I think runners are granted greater leeway by umpires in general. I would propose that you are drawing an inaccurate correlation with umpires judging "out of the baseline" infractions at the plate to a different standard vs. plays at the plate inherently just "looking different" because they... you know, typically look different.

22 hours ago, rhanna said:

It is not uncommon for a runner to then run around the catcher and attempt to score by diving back to the base.   You never see this play at any other base. 

This is an interesting one that I've put thought into before as well.

On one hand a reasonable person may conclude that once the baseline is established (catcher has the ball at the plate ready to tag), it is a direct line - TO THE PLATE - (not through the plate indefinitely). So it should stop at the plate, no? So a runner that slides and missed the plate and goes beyond the plate by more than 3 feet should surely be out of the baseline... seems logical, yet I agree it is never called.

Why is it never called? I believe there is an argument to be made that it is supported by the rules. Once the player "goes beyond" the base or plate and turns around that a new baseline is established. Just as a new baseline is established every time a runner changes direction in a rundown. So as long as the runner didn't go outside of the allotted 3 feet left or right prior to reaching the plate, over sliding the plate shouldn't factor into the out of the baseline infraction.

It's kind of like when a runner passes (goes beyond) a base without touching it, we treat it as that player has reached that base even though they never touched it. Of course they would be out on appeal, but they have technically reached the base... Which makes me wonder, when a player over slides home plate why doesn't a catcher just look at the umpire and touch the plate (appeal the miss) rather than getting into a standoff with the runner, giving the runner a chance to "juke" them out? 

22 hours ago, rhanna said:

* When exactly does the baseline get established?  The rules say: "A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely"   Assume that the fielder has the ball well ahead of the runner, say, 10 ft.  The fielder obviously cannot make a tag from this distance.  Is the baseline established only when the runner is close enough to the fielder for a tag to actually take place, or does the "tag attempt" begin as soon as the fielder has the ball with the intention to tag the oncoming runner?   

To my understanding the baseline is established when the player with the ball makes any intentional act to attempt to tag the runner. That does not mean they must be within reach of the runner. Moving toward the runner or simply possessing the ball while stationary and clearly showing intent that they are waiting to tag the runner coming toward them establishes the baseline.

I'm not sure if there are case plays to support this interpretation.

I believe Lindsey from CloseCallSports eluded to this in her recent "Skunk in the Outfield" breakdown. Noting that if the player with the ball started to move toward the runner in the outfield, they would immediately have to go in a direct line to a base and would not be allowed to continue to back pedal.

22 hours ago, rhanna said:

** The rules say that running more than 3ft away means the runner is out.  I think this would be based on the runners feet, but I am not certain.  On the play at home that we're discussing, the feet are often the furthest away because the runner is leaning towards home plate as they circle around the catcher.  Thus, frequently, their upper half may be within the 3ft but their lower half may not.  Does this matter?  I know umpires aren't out their with a yard stick, but do thy use the feet to establish "3 ft" or just generally "the player's body and its a judgment call." ?

This is another one I put a lot of thought into. To my knowledge there is no definitive answer. It's judgement.

For example, if a 6'4" player leaps/dives to the side and their feet swing out horizontally, then their feet could be 6' or more beyond the established baseline, but their HANDS still TOUCH the base on the dive. How can you possibly justify calling a runner out of the baseline if their single movement reached the base safely?

The same could be said, if a player side steps a tag and one foot slides back more than 3 feet for balance, but the entirety of their body is well within 3' are they out of the baseline?

I don't know if there is a definitive answer, but I personally subscribe to a center of gravity interpretation. The feet and the imprints on the ground can be evidence, but shouldn't be the end all be all imo.

 

 

[rhanna]

12 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

The rules don't support a difference into home plate (concerning out of the baseline infractions), nor do I think runners are granted greater leeway by umpires in general. I would propose that you are drawing an inaccurate correlation with umpires judging "out of the baseline" infractions at the plate to a different standard vs. plays at the plate inherently just "looking different" because they... you know, typically look different.

Thanks for your reply.  Here are two I found on youtube to consider.  It's just two examples, and obviously don't qualify as "umpires in general."  Umpires that call these runners out of the baseline aren't going to end up on youtube.  So, based on your interpretation of the rules, would these runners be out of the baseline?  Why or why not?  These just look like huge deviations to me and I'm trying to understand the umpire viewpoint - so thanks for providing your insight.

In the first, the player dances pretty far off the foul line to eventually score.  That player is dead to rights with the ball beating him and he is standing on the foul line when it gets caught.  I can't imagine that dance allowing him to be called safe anywhere other than home.  It looks to me like he moves more than 3ft off his baseline, but distances are hard and I'm not going to break out video analysis software.

 

 

Here is a second one.  In his first approach to the base, the runner doesn't just "overslide" home plate.  That initial dive  carries him across the back line of the catcher's box, that's 8ft away from the plate to avoid a tag.  He had both feet on the brown part of the base path when the catcher receives the ball, so his direct path isn't all that far off the foul line itself, as a reference.  Then after he gets up, he moves directly to his left (perpendicular to a line to the plate) 7 or 8 feet to avoid the catcher and then, when the catcher tries to tag him he moves back to his right (again perpendicular) another 7 or 8 feet before going directly to the plate.  That's three times I count out of the baseline.

 

[Velho]

First one is debatable 3 feet imo. Second is clearly more than 3 feet under any math.

Others with better understanding and knowledge of history can chime in (and we have discussed this before so try searching depending on how resolute your curiosity), but my view is that since home plate is different than the other bases it has historically gotten different treatment. That said, I have seen given less leeway (at times, each umpire is different of course) at the MLB level.

[Richvee]

For me, both these players are out of the basepath. The second has been discussed here at length. ( I haven't found it in a brief search)  

[RBIbaseball]

So obviously it's quite a bit easier when you can pause and rewind and get reference points.

Video 1:  Bad quality and hard to tell exactly with the angle, but this was a clean juke and he dove right back onto the plate. He looked to be directly over the baseline when his basepath was established. If you freeze frame at his furthest point away from the baseline, I would guess its closer to 4 or 5 feet, so I think the correct call would be to call him OUT for leaving the basepath.  That being said, the umpire is at a tough angle to distinguish 3 feet or 5 feet, so in real time I wouldn't consider it an egregious miss, although a valid argument for the defensive coach for sure. Would I have called him out? Not sure.

Video 2: Let's have some fun shall we...

1. Photo of Hawkins Field Runner's Lane to show evidence of exactly how wide the "dirt" (its turf) is on either side of the foul line. As you can see the Runner's Lane is essentially in line with the grass. I think its safe to say that the third base line has the same space and uniformity. Runner's Lane is 3 feet, so there is 3 feet from foul line to edge of grass.

Now we move onto the play. When the catcher gain possession and turns toward the runner, I believe the runner is directly over the edge of the grass (already 3ft off the baseline). Although not explicity stated whether the base path is established to the center of the base, or the nearest side of the base, we'll give the runner the benefit of the doubt and draw his base path to the back edge.

At the point the runner avoids the tag, he outside leg is flailed horizontally in the air, and his inside leg touches the ground. I would estimate the inside of his left foot to be center mass considering his upper body is leaning toward the catcher. Using the Runner's Lane measurement to gauge how far away from the base path the runner is at this point (considering it's very close to the same angle it gives us a fairly accurate measurement). I copy/pasted the blue marker to denote 3ft.

So based on the video evidence. I think it's MORE THAN LIKELY that the player is outside of 3ft of the base path at this point and should have been called OUT. However, definitely not an egregious no call by any stretch.

If we can move forward with the notion that OVERSLIDING does indeed establish a new base path, as I explained above, then let's take a look at the point the runner "REACHED" home plate.

At this point, I estimate the Runner's center of mass to be around the belly button (orange line on left), which seems to be 6-7' out of the established base path. The head of the runner is the closest body part, so even if you don't like the center of mass, I would still estimate the the head (orange line on right) is at least 4' out of the established base path.

Again, I would argue the video evidence definitely supports calling the runner OUT, even more so at the end of the movement, rather than at the "tag point".

 

Now onto the 2nd base path....  this is fun. I freeze frame where I would say is a reasonable spot where the catcher is "attempting to make another play" on the runner, therefore a base path is reestablished. 

New 3' reference:  Assuming the turf lines are regulation, home plate is 17" and there are 6" from inside edge of batter's box line to edge of home plate = 29". Outside edge of catcher's box line to outside edge is 43". 43 - 29 = 14" the the catcher's box is offset on either side. So 7" each. Add 7" to 29" and we conviently get 36" or 3'. So outside edge of catcher's box line to inside edge of batter's box line is exactly 3'. Assuming our camera is centered on the field, the blue line above should be very close to 3'.

I drew a base path to each side of the plate just to give the runner the maximum leeway.

As the runner juked to the right it's hard to tell his exact location because of the broadcast score overlay, but based on the transposed 3' line, AT BEST his left pinky toe is right at 3', and his center of mass is clearly outside 3'. Again, out of base path.

As the runner juked back to the left, he was even further out of the base path. This is where the catcher lunges and misses, then throws it to the pitcher to tag the runner out.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION: I believe he was out of the base path, lol.

I also conclude the umpire called the runner OUT, and was correct either way... lol. I think it's VERY possible that if the runner beat the final tag and was clearly safe, that the umpire would have called time and called the runner out for running out of the bath path. But we'll never know.

 

 

Hope this was fun to analyze with me , haha.

 

 

[rhanna]

Great analysis RBIbaseball - thanks for the insight!

I agree with you on the first play that it was close enough to not be an obvious bad call, especially in real time.  I also submit that there is zero chance that a similar play at any other base would have resulted in a safe call.  Hence my point about different treatment even though the rules are the same.  Again, to be fair, two plays from youtube doesn't constitute good evidence for "umpires in general."

Your answer on the Arkansas-Vandy play raises two additional points.

First, the point at which you judge that a play is being attempted is super important.  In my analysis, after the original slide, I didn't assume that a play was being attempted until the catch returned to home plate and the runner was on the right side of the frame (I was probably wrong).   This means the runner moved left 8ish feet of his base path, then right 8ish feet back towards his base path, then to home plate.  You judged that the play was attempted when the catcher began returning to home plate.  This means that the player moved to his right 4ish feet.  Back to his left 4ish feet (to original position) and then 4ish feet more.  By that interpretation, the player was much closer to his original base path than by mine. 

Second, you point out that the ump called him out on the tag, and might have called him out for being out of the base path after taking some time to consider.  Shouldn't the umpire try to make that call in real time?  It doesn't happen here, but a lot of times runners keep advancing while the dancing is going on.

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, rhanna said:

Great analysis RBIbaseball - thanks for the insight!

I agree with you on the first play that it was close enough to not be an obvious bad call, especially in real time.  I also submit that there is zero chance that a similar play at any other base would have resulted in a safe call.  Hence my point about different treatment even though the rules are the same.  Again, to be fair, two plays from youtube doesn't constitute good evidence for "umpires in general."

Your answer on the Arkansas-Vandy play raises two additional points.

First, the point at which you judge that a play is being attempted is super important.  In my analysis, after the original slide, I didn't assume that a play was being attempted until the catch returned to home plate and the runner was on the right side of the frame (I was probably wrong).   This means the runner moved left 8ish feet of his base path, then right 8ish feet back towards his base path, then to home plate.  You judged that the play was attempted when the catcher began returning to home plate.  This means that the player moved to his right 4ish feet.  Back to his left 4ish feet (to original position) and then 4ish feet more.  By that interpretation, the player was much closer to his original base path than by mine. 

Second, you point out that the ump called him out on the tag, and might have called him out for being out of the base path after taking some time to consider.  Shouldn't the umpire try to make that call in real time?  It doesn't happen here, but a lot of times runners keep advancing while the dancing is going on.

The judgement of when a play is being made and base path established is definitely debatable. I went down that rabbit hole years ago and couldn't get a definitive answer. 

 

But if I recall , the consensus was that you don't need to be within reach of a runner to attempt a play and establish a base path.

 

The freeze frame i chose is after the catcher looks at the runner and starts to gather himself, but before he gets to his feet. I think that when he gains balance and control over his body with intent to move to make a play on the runner it should be established.

 

Timing is everything, and some plays allow for more time. It's better to take an extra second and get the call right then jump the gun and regret it. Sometimes you need to see the play fully finish before you can render a judgement like this.

 

For example, I think if he killed it on the tag attempt and said "out of the basepath" for the movements behind home plate it would be perfectly fine timing .... Whereas if he called it at the same point and pointed back at the baseline where the first tag was and called it for that, that is a bit late.

 

Also, I disagree on your point about the first video. I think a BU with that same angle would allow that same play at 2nd base as the PU at home.

 

Lastly, another point with timing... Let's use a more routine play out on the bases:

Runner tries to run around fielder.

Runner runs 5 feet out of base path.

Umpire processes this and thinks "he's out of base path", but at the same moment the runner is OBVIOUSLY tagged.

 

I'm always going to get the easy tag over the out of the base path, even if technically the chicken came before the egg... Why overcomplicate it ?

 

Same scenarios but I'm blocked out from the tag and only 75% sure the tag was applied. I'm going to get out of the baseline all day. That way if the 75% was indeed correct, I still got the call right, but if the 25% was and the tag was whiffed by a few inches, the offense can't tell me I was wrong... "Coach, in my judgement, he ran more than 3' out of the established base path".

 

There's some nuance to the game management and it's possible the umpire was looking for the likely EASY and OBVIOUS tag instead of calling the judgement call when it's somewhat close (even if in his head he came to the conclusion that he was out of the base path, he may have held that momentarily)... Unfortunately in this play the runner continued to evade like Barry Sanders, which made it look more and more silly ... And objectively after analysis I think it's fair to say the umpire should have indeed called it. Not to mention he honestly might have been safe on the tag, lol, it was close.

 

Just my 2 cents

[RBIbaseball]

7 hours ago, rhanna said:

Great analysis RBIbaseball - thanks for the insight!

I agree with you on the first play that it was close enough to not be an obvious bad call, especially in real time.  I also submit that there is zero chance that a similar play at any other base would have resulted in a safe call.  Hence my point about different treatment even though the rules are the same.  Again, to be fair, two plays from youtube doesn't constitute good evidence for "umpires in general."

Your answer on the Arkansas-Vandy play raises two additional points.

First, the point at which you judge that a play is being attempted is super important.  In my analysis, after the original slide, I didn't assume that a play was being attempted until the catch returned to home plate and the runner was on the right side of the frame (I was probably wrong).   This means the runner moved left 8ish feet of his base path, then right 8ish feet back towards his base path, then to home plate.  You judged that the play was attempted when the catcher began returning to home plate.  This means that the player moved to his right 4ish feet.  Back to his left 4ish feet (to original position) and then 4ish feet more.  By that interpretation, the player was much closer to his original base path than by mine. 

Second, you point out that the ump called him out on the tag, and might have called him out for being out of the base path after taking some time to consider.  Shouldn't the umpire try to make that call in real time?  It doesn't happen here, but a lot of times runners keep advancing while the dancing is going on

Duplicate post

 

.

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

"A play" and "a tag" are two different things.  The runner's basepath is not established until a tag attempt occurs.

Using OBR . . . 

 

A tag is not performed by moving towards a runner.  A tag is not performed on a runner with the feet.  Pretty safe to say a tag must be a reasonable attempt to contact the runner with the ball or glove.

 

As for plays at the plate, I would say they (correctly or incorrectly) seem to get more leeway because they are very different and unfold very differently than a runner going to a base.  A runner going to second or third base is not going to be as "wild" with their attempt to get by because they must land on the target.  A runner going home only has to touch home plate . . . they are going to come in from a variety of angles, at a faster speed, and with no intention of stopping there.

[Velho]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

A tag is not performed by moving towards a runner.  A tag is not performed on a runner with the feet.  Pretty safe to say a tag must be a reasonable attempt to contact the runner with the ball or glove.

So when does a tag attempt start with skunk in the outfield? Running towards him with the intent to tag or when in proximity of being able to tag?

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

"A play" and "a tag" are two different things.  The runner's basepath is not established until a tag attempt occurs.

Using OBR . . . 

 

A tag is not performed by moving towards a runner.  A tag is not performed on a runner with the feet.  Pretty safe to say a tag must be a reasonable attempt to contact the runner with the ball or glove.

 

As for plays at the plate, I would say they (correctly or incorrectly) seem to get more leeway because they are very different and unfold very differently than a runner going to a base.  A runner going to second or third base is not going to be as "wild" with their attempt to get by because they must land on the target.  A runner going home only has to touch home plate . . . they are going to come in from a variety of angles, at a faster speed, and with no intention of stopping there.

Here we go again. And I don't say that as to suggest you aren't right, but I've seen many different interpretations... And they all make sense.

 

To my knowledge there has never been a published clarification to this.

 

Easy example is skunk in the outfield, where I recall many smart people saying simply moving toward the runner establishes a basepath.

 

I've seen others argue that a defender could just "swipe his glove through the air" from 20+ feet away and "attempt" a tag... That seems silly, but hey, it's an attempt...

 

I could argue that standing in between you and where you are trying to get to and holding the ball in front of me for you to eventually run into is the beginning of a tag, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Personally, once the defender shows intent to go after a runner I have the beginning of a tag attempt and I would establish a basepath. Take it to the extreme and what if a runner is running to the outfield fence and the defender is chasing him but 10' behind so he never reaches his glove out ... Would you not consider him out of the basepath while chasing? ...

 

I'm not going to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the "if I have the ball and I'm looking at you, then I'm attempting to tag you", but surely it's prior to a glove physically reaching out within a distance that an arm could reach.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

"A play" and "a tag" are two different things.  The runner's basepath is not established until a tag attempt occurs.

Using OBR . . . 

 

A tag is not performed by moving towards a runner.  A tag is not performed on a runner with the feet.  Pretty safe to say a tag must be a reasonable attempt to contact the runner with the ball or glove.

 

 

MLBUM added a 2017 interp: "....so long as the umpire determines that a play is being made on the runner and an attempt to tag is occurring, i.e. the fielder is moving to tag, no physical tag attempt is required to call a runner out for leaving the basepath."

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

"A play" and "a tag" are two different things

 

A tag and a tag attempt are two different things. 

[RBIbaseball]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

MLBUM added a 2017 interp: "....so long as the umpire determines that a play is being made on the runner and an attempt to tag is occurring, i.e. the fielder is moving to tag, no physical tag attempt is required to call a runner out for leaving the basepath."

Something like this is what I was looking for. Thanks.

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/25/2024 at 7:43 PM, RBIbaseball said:

Here we go again. And I don't say that as to suggest you aren't right, but I've seen many different interpretations... And they all make sense.

I'm not going to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the "if I have the ball and I'm looking at you, then I'm attempting to tag you", but surely it's prior to a glove physically reaching out within a distance that an arm could reach.

Edited for brevity.  I believe in that (or another) thread I made the case for using intersecting trajectories.  In other words, determining where the "collision point" would be if the fielder were to tag the runner based on their positions.

I'm not going to go hard into the reaching out aspect, but just the point at which a tag is feasible.  In other words, in your example, chasing ten-feet away is not a tag attempt.  Closing ground and getting within tagging distance is once a tag is feasible.

I don't agree with the "movement towards the skunk" establishing a basepath so much as I support a runner not running to a base as abandoning his effort to advance.

On 6/25/2024 at 8:42 PM, Jimurray said:

MLBUM added a 2017 interp: "....so long as the umpire determines that a play is being made on the runner and an attempt to tag is occurring, i.e. the fielder is moving to tag, no physical tag attempt is required to call a runner out for leaving the basepath."

I think this supports what I am saying and is not as broad as some are reading it.  A tag attempt does not start with the movement of the arm (it begins before that) but it also does not begin with the first movement towards the runner (in the case of a chase).

[Velho]

Back to out of base path at home plate, a possible answer may be legacy.

I found that OBR in 1975 stated (emphasis mine) "7.08 Any runner is out when (a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct  line between bases to avoid being tagged"

vs current OBR: "5.09(b) Any runner is out when: (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged."

The 1975 book included an interpretation:

Baserunner slides home, misses plate

On a fly to short center, the runner tries to score from third, but a
strong throw beats him by several feet. The runner slides around the
catcher and not only avoids the tag but misses the plate by at least a foot.
Hoping to bluff it out, the runner nonchalantly starts for the dugout, but
the backstop starts chasing him. Trying to avoid the catcher, the runner
circles around him while trying to get back to the plate. What should the
umpire do?

Since the runner has not left "a direct line between bases to avoid
being tagged," he has the right to attempt to return to the plate. How-
ever, the catcher simply should have ignored him, stepped on the
plate before he returned and appealed to the umpire that the runner
missed the plate. (7.08a-k)