Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
OBR 7.08(j): Any runner is out when he fails to return at once to first base after overrunning or oversliding that base. If he attempts to run to second he is out when tagged. If, after overrunning or oversliding first base he starts toward the dugout, or toward his position, and fails to return to first base at once, he is out, on appeal, when he or the base is tagged.
Question: Under OBR rules could a runner that makes only a head feint towards second base be judged by the umpire as now being in jeopardy of being tagged out? If not, do additional physical "feinting" mechanisms have to be put into effect by the runner to be in jeopardy? If a runner cannot be tagged out for feinting towards second base then at what point is he considered to be "attempts to run" as noted in the rule?
|
U7, the following Professional interpretation from JEA 7.08(j) may help you with this issue:
"
Professional Interpretation: Simply turning toward 2nd base shall not be interpreted as making an attempt to run to 2nd. This is a judgment call by the umpire. However, a single step or head feint may be interpreted as an attempt to advance (umpire's judgment). The umpire must be convinced that the runner made some movement which indicated that he might try to advance to 2nd." {my underline}
The original intent of this rule appears to have been to ALLOW the batter-runner to continue to advance to 2nd without first having to retouch 1st base after overrunning, but also removing his exemption from jeopardy in overrunning if he elected to continue to 2nd, whether or not he actually continued to that base. Bottom line here is, IMHO, that the umpire
must consider the runner's obvious INTENT when making his judgement decision. Turning toward 2nd after overrunning is NOT, by itself, interpreted as an attempt to advance BUT turning toward 2nd
with intent to advance MAY BE such an attempt in the umpire's judgement. There is no difference in the action here, but only in the intent accompanying the action. This is VERY difficult to judge, but the consolation is that it is purely a judgement decision and so not protestable.
Cheers,