OBR 7.01 vs OBR 7.10(AR)

[Gee]

OK, I have learned, from the Great One, that "if a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base" (OBR 7.01).

If the runner attempts to return the umpire should warn him and if he persists should be called out. (JEA, J/R, Fitzpatrick and Childress).

Now we go to OBR 7.10 "APPROVED RULING: (2) When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base. PLAY. (a) Batter hits ball out of park or ground rule double and misses first base (ball is dead)_he may return to first base to correct his mistake before he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and if defensive team appeals he is declared out at first."

The above two rules clearly say that the runner may not return with different but similar situations. OBR 7.01 has been interpreted with the penalties shown above but I have seen nothing concerning 7.10(AR).

I have been lead to believe from previous posts on all boards that if a runner attempts to return, in violation of OBR 7.10(AR) you do nothing and keep the appeal alive. The reasoning was that if you did anything you would be tipping off the defense to the missed base but wouldn't that also be true under the OBR 7.01 violation?

Of course, if the runner that violated OBR 7.10(AR)which is a dead ball situation and waited until the ball was made live he would now be in violation of both rules and you could invoke the penalty under OBR 7.01. But there are times when bases are awarded after violating OBR 7.10(AR) and the runner will not wait until the ball is put in play but just go back to the missed base and then take the award.

My simple question is, do you invoke the penalties under OBR 7.01 for the OBR 7.10(AR) violation or not. I did ask C2 that question but he was more interested in criticizing me than addressing the issue and evaded it. Any help on this. G.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Gee
OK, I have learned, from the Great One, that "if a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base" (OBR 7.01).

If the runner attempts to return the umpire should warn him and if he persists should be called out. (JEA, J/R, Fitzpatrick and Childress).

There is nothing in JEA, at least, about "warning" the runner to return. JEA simply and cleanly instructs to call the runner out. From the applicable Professional Interpretation:

When the pitcher assumes his position on the rubber prior to delivery, no runner may return to a previously
occupied base. If he attempts to do so, the umpire shall call "time" and declare him out.
Originally adopted to eliminate a trick play and unorthodox strategy, this rule accomplished its purpose. Such shenanigans are unheard of in the modern game.
Umpires should be alert and declare out any runner who should return to his previous base after the pitcher has
assumed his position on the rubber. This could most logically happen when the runner felt that he "left too soon" on a tag-up and would attempt to return before an appeal was made on him.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Gee
OK, I have learned, from the Great One, that "if a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base" (OBR 7.01).

G.

From my readings of JEA and J/R, of the "four" authorities Carl listed only he and Fitzpatrick have intepreted that a warning be issued.

[Gee]

.....let's forget the warning and just call the out and move on to the question. G.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gee
.....let's forget the warning and just call the out and move on to the question. G.

My take: If there's still "continuing action", let the runner return under 7.10, and allow the appeal, if needed.

If it's not continuing action, don't let the runner return under 7.01

[Gee]

Under 7.10(AR) there wouldn't be any continuing action as the ball would be dead. So if the runner went back to retouch before the pitcher was ready to pitch you would call him out using 7.01. G.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gee
Under 7.10(AR) there wouldn't be any continuing action as the ball would be dead. So if the runner went back to retouch before the pitcher was ready to pitch you would call him out using 7.01. G.

The runner is still running out the awards -- that's the continuing action to which I was referrriing. Once there's been "a break in the action" (runner stops at a base, pitcher gets the ball, you'd grant a TO if it were requested, ...) then you use 7.01

[Gee]

The ball is dead, the runner gets a two base award but in order to take that two base award he has to go back and touch the missed base which would not be allowed under OBR 7.10(AR).

You would allow him to retouch, take his award and then call him out and not do it when he (re)touched first which of course would all be done with a dead ball.

Prior to C2's bringing the interps for 7.01 to my attention I never knew they existed. It does seem consistant when using it on 7.10(AR) but in all these years I have never known that to be the case but it does seem to be the right thing to do. G.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by stevenump
Carl, if a runner, after the ball has become dead and he continued to a preceding base, begins to return to a previously occupied base, what should we as the umpire do?

To start with, I think you mean "succeeding" base. Right?

Let me say that a spell checker would certainly improve your posts. Next, I don't think it's any of your business that I'm a drunk, especially since I don't drink any more -- and drink a whole lot less. Next, I don't believe your Wendelstedt post. It's unsigned, and so there's no way we can check its validity or accuracy.

I am at a loss to understand what the problem is. Or rather, I actually know what the problem is with those who profess they don't understand these rules.

1. During a dead ball a runner may always return to touch a missed base or one he left too soon, even if after the ball became dead, he touched a succeeding base. (In that instance, he's subject to appeal.)

2. EXCEPT: Once the pitcher toes the rubber with the ball (and presumably the umpire declares the ball alive), the runner may not return. We know that in Fitzpatrick's ruling, at least, the ball is alive because he says the umpire must not permit the defense to play on the returning runner. Reason: It would negate their opportunity to appeal.

Mr. Small (and you're appropriately named, I might add), you and Gee remind me of those clerics of old who couldn't decide how many angels could sit on the head of a pin.

I think Mike's "warning" is a welcome addition to the published penalty for violation of 7.01.

(Let's be sure we understand that calling out a runner for violation of 7.01 CMT is authorized by 7.08i.)

Finally, one of Shakespeare's plays comes to mind. The only violations I've ever seen of 7.01 have occurred in print. We would stand to gain much more from a discussion of what constitutes batter interference with a catcher's attempt to prevent a stolen base. That's a violation that actually occurs in games.

It happened twice in my double, double-header this past Sunday. Temp at mid-afternoon, 85. Not bad for 5 December.

Of course, I'm just an amateur ump.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 7th, 2004 at 05:19 AM]

[GarthB]

Finally, one of Shakespeare's plays comes to mind.

Gee, so many have fitting titles.

As you like it?

A Midsummer's Night Dream?

All's Well That Ends Well?

The Comedy of Errors?

The Tempest?


No, I got it:


Much Ado About Nothing!

"Let every eye negotiate for itself
And trust no agent." Act 2, Scene 1

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
Finally, one of Shakespeare's plays comes to mind.

Gee, so many have fitting titles.

As you like it?

A Midsummer's Night Dream?

All's Well That Ends Well?

The Comedy of Errors?

The Tempest?


No, I got it:


Much Ado About Nothing!

"Let every eye negotiate for itself
And trust no agent." Act 2, Scene 1

There you go, showing off your classical education again.

Sometimes I think one of Orwell's titles is more descriptive of some of the guys who post here.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Sometimes I think one of Orwell's titles is more descriptive of some of the guys who post here.

Some are certainly more equal than others.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Some are certainly more equal than others.

And some of us are stuck in 1984.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

And some of us are stuck in 1984.

Thank goodness Orwell was wrong about the future ... or was he?

Anyway, Huxley didn't get it right ... did he?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Thank goodness Orwell was wrong about the future ... or was he?

Anyway, Huxley didn't get it right ... did he?

I don't know, but Ted Geisel did:

"Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them."