[tibear]

Another question from another forum:

We all know that a baserunner establishes their baseline as a direct line between themselves and the possible bases they are allowed to run to, when the defense is attempting to tag them off base.

Situation: R2 with 0 out, ground ball hit to F5. R2 begins running to 3rd on hit and then meets F5 standing on the established baseline. R2 runs around F5 towards homeplate as F5 tries to tag the runner and then throws BR out at first. I think we can all agree that umpire will probably declare R2 is out for abandoning basepath and the play continues even without a "official" tag of R2. The assumption is that R2 must run directly towards any base they are entitled to, in this case 2nd or 3rd. R2 is out because he ran towards homeplate when F5 tried to tag him.

Questioning Situation: R1, R2 with 0 out, ground ball hit to F5. Everyone agrees that if R2 does the same as situation above he is automatically out without having to tag. However, in this situation, should second base be treated similar to homeplate in that R2 should not be entitled to run towards second base because he is forced to leave that base. Thus, if F5 now picks up the ball and runs towards R2 who is between F5 and 2nd base, the question is could you call R2 automatically out if he runs directly towards 2nd base(a base he is not entitled to)? Could the established baseline be only from the runner to his next base and not the previous base because of the force situation.

I've never called it this way and have never seen anyone else interpret the baseline as this but thought it was an interesting question.

OBR Rule quotes

7.08
Any runner is out when --
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. 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; or (2) after touching first base, he leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

In our second situation, should R2 be able to attempt to reach second safely since he is was forced off it? If it is legal why should 2nd be treated differently then 1st or home, since the only base the runner is entitled to run to is third.

Just to be clear, I understand the rule but thought the "different perspective" on the rule was an interesting question.