Not out of Base Path. What do we think?

[johnnyg08]

 

[Velho]

I'm good with this. I think it's borderline (but grabable) even had F4 had been attempting a tag the entire time vs two separate tag attempts. (Which U2 only saw the second tag attempt).

Add in avoiding the fielder in the act of fielding and/or moving so as not to interfere with the possible throw, and it's a good no call.

 If we're going to parse these to the gnat's behind, we have to have a definition of the A & Z measurement points.

Point A as tag attempt begins is which: inside or outside most foot? Or other body part? Center of mass?

Point Z as runner reaches max distance is same or opposite foot? Other body part? Center of mass?

Without that you can only get the most egregious instances.

(Bonus point of contention: base path ends at the bag or runs through and beyond it?)

[stevis]

I think I'm ok with it as well, but playing devil's advocate here:

Baez doesn't have Go Go Gadget Arms.  He has to run at R1 to tag him; isn't that the start of the tag attempt?

(I'm still not sure he goes 3 feet away from his basepath even in that interpretation)

[Velho]

1 hour ago, stevis said:

He has to run at R1 to tag him; isn't that the start of the tag attempt?

With the benefit of video vs real time, I think there are two tag attempts.

One where Baez veers left just as he gloves the ball. That attempt ends as he shoulders to the right in consideration of throwing to 1B.

Then a second tag attempt before again aborting to throw to 1B.

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, stevis said:

I think I'm ok with it as well, but playing devil's advocate here:

Baez doesn't have Go Go Gadget Arms.  He has to run at R1 to tag him; isn't that the start of the tag attempt?

(I'm still not sure he goes 3 feet away from his basepath even in that interpretation)

I've usually taken a contrary opinion on this, but in this case I firmly agree.  Baez has to move towards him to make the attempt, so I have the tag starting as he is running towards him.  He unquestionably deviates 3 feet from that point.

Where I have disagreed with this logic is a fielder chasing a runner, from behind or from the side.  In those cases, I want to see an imminent "collision point" -- a point where the glove has an opportunity to touch the runner, not the start of an action to put the fielder in position.

Here is my Devil's Advocate point . . . since so many start salivating and sporting a wooden bat when you mention calling a runner out for abandonment . . . Doesn't he give up his effort at advancing?

[Velho]

4 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Doesn't he give up his effort at advancing?

Or is this a technique to advance?

[The Man in Blue]

Is it verbal interference if the runner tells the fielder, "Nah, you don't have to tag me, the umpire already called me out"?

[BLWizzRanger]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Is it verbal interference if the runner tells the fielder, "Nah, you don't have to tag me, the umpire already called me out"?

I don't know but it is very quick thinking....

[dumbdumb]

that's why i carry a ruler. gets me/keeps me out of trouble every time.