I would like to ask members for clarity on this baserunning situation, one of those NO calls that may require me to call TIME and ask for a group hug. Please make the correct call AND provide a valid justification for it. For the record, if asked, I would agree with the original call and stick with it. The video can be found at this NCAA website.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/cham...ing/index.html

I am referring to the close play at first base where a baserunner avoids the tag. Please review NCAA Umpire Video Bulletins, No. 1 - March 1 (total running time 10 min., 04 sec.) Windows Media and No. 2 - April 15 (total running time 9 min., 48 sec.) Windows Media.

Is this a Jaksa and Roder (JR) situation, one of those purplexing situations an umpire may find himself in on a daily basis? IMO, another wonderful NCAA video production that provides us umpires with a chance to think about a possible situation before it explodes on us. My hats off to them with best wishes for their effort.

It was a good call on the no tag and a poor call on the runner going three feet out of his established running lane. As Yeast points out, you have the running lane to use as a reference in that instance.

It was clear that the runner went more than three feet out of his lane to avoid the tag. Considering it was near first and there were many things happening at once, I can understand how the umpire missed, but those are the type of plays that we are paid to get right.

A smart coach, instead of going balistic and getting thrown out, should have asked him to confer with the plate umpire. It's the PU job to watch for certain things around first (pulled foot, swipe tags, running lane interference). And while the avoiding of a tag by three feet isn't one of them, if he saw it and offered it to the BU, the call may have been changed.

The running lane was a good reference because it is 3 feet wide. The runner was running on the line and went outside the running lane to avoid the tag, thus he ran more than 3 feet from his baseline and should be out. Other than the running lane being 3 feet wide, and makes a good reference for far he went to dodge the tag it has no bearing in this play. Running lane violations are for throws from near home plate area. If a quality throw from the home plate area (ie catcher or pitcher on a bunt), and it hits the batter-runner while he is out of the running lane he is out for the interference.

Yes, the only reference to the running lane was that it is three feet wide. The BR started running inside the line (on the infield grass) and then went across it and outside the line (into foul territory) to avoid the tag, so it was clear he went more than three feet to avoid the tag.

I'm pretty sure Yeast clarifies his comments in the next video installment -- he wasn't saying that the running lane rule had any bearing on the play, only that the lines on the field (that happen to be the runninglane) provide a good reference for the "going more than 3' out of the baseline" rule and that the runner should have been eclared out for this infraction.

Still waiting for more replies?
 

Carefull, class is in session and its a TRICK QUESTION!

Take your time and think. I would like to hear more opinions from members in the controversial NCAA IBB-BALK CALL thread. Remember the NCAA party line, hook, and sinker. I understand the 3-feet to avoid the tag rule is very popular this time of year. Don't flip-flop now.

Any more original ideas out there? You may respond as many times as you like. Go group hug with your buddies and ask them for help. Get your rulebooks (1980-present) and remember what you learned in your first NCAA umpire rules clinic(s). Not the LL stuff.

The following HINT is suppose to be ADULT humor.

I still think the runner's safe, but I am definitely not the top dog, a big dog, nor a mean dog. Just a dog thats been a round the block more than once, and has learned to avoid the piss marks left by all of the other male dogs.

Isn't it iromnic that the 2005 NCAA umpiring videos also dump on the OK coaches, like they didn't have enough with ESPN and the rest of the Big-12 on their plate?

Hope you enjoy the learning assignment as much as the humor.

Re: Still waiting for more replies?
 

Yes, the runner is safe, because that's how the umpire ruled.

But, the runner should have been out, because that's how Yeast reviewed the play.

I and others in this thread have explained why we agree with Yeast -- the runner went out of the established path by more than 3' to avoid a tag.

Why do you think the original umpire was correct?

Original Umpire nailed it!
 

I know the runner is SAFE! Safe on the throw, safe on the tag, safe on the re-tag attempt and safe on the touch of first base. My PARTNERS all saw the same play. SAFE! Now the head coach, with a 3-foot indicator lying right there, goes out to challenge the play. I would not reverse a good judgment call unless the coach follows proper appeal procedures. If so, I am going to give him the whole 36-inches for his efforts.

I would inform the coach that the runner did not interfere with the play at first base, maintained a proper running lane to first base to avoid the out, and that the lines on the field do not determine the runner's actual running lane. Runner is declared safe, AGAIN. I was not there so I can not determine what the coach may have said for the umpire to stick to HIS CALL and then to turn away and eject the coach (APPLAUSE AND SUPPORT).

Now the coach, in anger and realizing he has not convinced the umpire to change his call, will try to use a rule book, spit and other tactics to get his point across. Not in my yard, wasn't that a bump or just unitentional contact? Your first baseman was in the air in fair territory at the time with his glove extended a foot inside the baseline. Unfortunately, the first baseman's momentum was away from the base because of a bad throw. The first baseman could not apply a proper tag and missed the opportunity to touch first after the runnner had missed the base. SAFE! I have already stated the obvious. I am not going to bail your lousy team defensive skills/efforts and take a hit away from a right handed batter who showed hustle and determination to get to first base SAFELY. If its any consolation to you, this simple matter will be recorded as an error on F6 and an ejection on the improper appeal of a judgement call.

That 3-feet to avoid a tag rule happens every single day on almost every tag play. This wasn't one of those plays. If you want to play the game under protest, I will be happy to inform the protest committee to expect their protest FEE. You have been ejected and I will send my report to the committee at the end of this ballgame. I do not need the flak from my assignors and if I can get the other head coach to agree with YOU, I will change the call to meet YOUR NEEDS! Do you want me to go ask for his opinion before I flip-flop, for no other reasan than to suck up to the powers that be? Perhaps one of you can provide me with the justification for it too!

Otherwise, batter runner is SAFE and this report will be turn in to the protest committee. If you still disagree, then fine, try to have a nice day. Remember to PLAY FAIR!

rulesgeek? that you? :D

SAump, this is a tough call to make, as Dave Yeast says. The umpire did a good job of focusing on the tag, which was missed. But just as the tag with the ball not in the glove in yesterdays Yankee game, there is more to be aware of than just the tag. Watching the replay clearly shows the runner moved about four feet to avoid the tag.

Both those plays should demonstrate to every umpire how easy it is to get tunnel vision on a play and end up getting the call wrong because the umpire missed the big picture.

The coach in the NCAA case is an idiot. He might have gotten the call reversed if he had just asked the BU to confer with the PU. The PU should have been up the line watching the play and could have easily offered additional information in this situation.

I hope the rant made you feel better...

Re: Original Umpire nailed it!
 

If his glove was a foot inside the baseline (which it wasn't) then the batter was more than 4 feet away from the tag becuase one foot was clearly inside the line before the tag attempt and he clearly moved outside the running lane to avoid the tag. So, what you are saying is you would resort to lieing to avoid being one-upped by the manager, when a simple consultation with your PU will result in the proper call, since he has a real good angle on this play.

Attack the message
 

I have been more than professional. I asked to debate a topic that I was having trouble understanding and I gave my opinion up front. When the moderator asked for the basis of my opinion, I gave it a good shot within the rules of the game. I can agree to accept this mob mentality to apply the 3-foot rule per rulebook designation. However, my intent was to discuss the rule application, to learn when and how to apply the rule in all situations, and when or how not to apply it. This is one of those situations. If you attack the messenger and stifle real discussion, then I guess I fail to do anything.

I believe the 3-foot rule also ties to other rules such as the must-slide or go-around interpretations. You already know that there isn't a must slide rule at first base. No one else applies the 3-foot rule to runners that have established running lanes far from the base line at any other base. Why do I say that? Because its SO common for any runner to tag the plate headfirst with his hand or tag 2B with his foot on a hook slide past a very good tag attempt at every other base. The coach doesn't run out there to dispute those calls.

It was a force situation! The first baseman was NOT waiting on the line with a good tag. With the exception of his outstretched arm, he didn't attempt to tag the runner as he came by. If you consider, the runner was going to be out for simply running inside the foul line, then you can see why the runner corrected his running lane. I guess if he only altered his course by 1 foot, he would have been SAFE (4 feet - 1 foot = 3 foot). I didn't hear the other coach complain about it. How are you going to explain that to him, not me, UMP? You made the call, you explain it, and I will try to back you up if I can. That is what I learned at the clinic. I am willing to bet anyone a copy of the 2006 BRD that the other coach will not agree to your explanation of the call reversal.

Re: Attack the message
 

Say what? What constitutes a tag attempt to you? When to apply the 3 foot rule? When a player runs more than 3 feet from a tag attempt.

And, he was not going to be called out for running inside the baseline, and, this was not a force play...

Re: Attack the message
 

SA it is all to obvious that the runner was doing nothing but trying to avoid the tag. He tried avoiding it so much that he ran past 1B and had to come back to the bag a bit. He had an established base path and went a good 4 feet out of that to avoid the tag.

The base path is what the runner establishes, not the lines drawn on the ground. For example, the third base line is drawn but basically never does a runner that rounded 3rd, heading home, run on that line. His momentum swings him out into foul territory. If a defesive player tries to tag him, you are not going to use the actual line drawn to determine if he was out of the base path, it will be how much he runs out of the path he is running in to determine the 3 feet.

What I find interesting is how easily that legal 3 foot wide space to avoid a tag got eaten up with the runner moving full tilt. If there were not chalk by his feet to measure that he went 4 feet instead of the legit 3 feet, there is no way I'd have thought that he went too far to avoid the tag. He only went one stride wide. His next stride does not seem to be any wider than his initial avoid stride.

Without that measure on field I think that I would give the runner the benefit of the doubt on something that close. That video is an excellent tool to help us recalibrate what we think is the 3 foot wide "avoid the tag" path.

Connect the DOTS
 

Everyone on this thread states that F3 missed the tag because the B/R violated the tag 3-foot rule. That point is clear, and NO longer needs to be discussed! Please don't answer with another 3-foot rule discusion. If my first assumption is wrong, then logically part of my third assumption is invalid (OOO-ya-OUT).

I said, so far alone, that the tag rule does NOT APLLY on a FORCE PLAY at 1B. WHY? It is a disadvantage for the runner not to slide. Forget the interference play, the running lane is established to protect the first baseman from a B/R spikes during a slide/step and other serious BLOWS! This was recognized by Ty Cobb and is not treated under the same scenario at the other bases. It is a force play, no-tag rule at 1B, SAFE!

I said, so far alone, that F3 missed the tag because a throwing ERROR by F6 pulled F3 off the base and away from the running lane. As a result he was in a poor position to tag a very agile B/R. This also happens on errant throws to other bases. A runner may take an inside route as the catcher is fielding the ball to the outside, far more than this 3-foot BS and SLIDE.

I said, so far alone, a B/R can legally run from left to right side of the running lane to avoid a tag or to run to second (far more than 3 feet). I have already explained why the runner had to modify his original running lane, but some of you have already questioned that interpretation. It happens routinely at every other base.

I asked if this was another J/R moment? Well, am I WRONG, WRONG,WRONG, WRONG? If asking for a clear explanation about some of the baseball rules may upset you, then allow someone else to respond. Somehow I missed something, so connect the dots for me!

Re: Connect the DOTS
 

Perhaps, SA, if your posts didn't read like Faulkner [The Sound and The Fury comes immediately to mind], it might be easier for others to respond to your ?question(s)?

Basically, everyone seems to be saying that the play in question SHOULD be called like Yeast wants it [duh... he's the national supervisor] and that your "interpretation" has no merit. That you are alone in your position OUGHT to "connect the dots" for you.

EDIT>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, I forgot:

The 3-foot rule "...does NOT apply to a FORCE PLAY at 1B. WHY? ....": 'cause there ain't no such thing [see: myriad prior threads here and elsewhere; rule book defn.] as a force play @ 1st.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 6th, 2005 at 11:20 AM]

that will have no effect, I predict :D

Re: Connect the DOTS
 

You may be correct about the origin of the 45 ft lane, I have no idea, but you're point that the 45 foot lane is currently used to protect F3 is obsolete. I've seen spiking where the runner used this lane. We can/do protect F3 (via ejection/suspension) without need for the 45 foot lane.

No wonder.


[Edited by bluehair on Jul 6th, 2005 at 11:06 AM]

Re: Re: Connect the DOTS
 

A-frickin'-men.

Has WCB returned?

SAump,
Your contention that the tag rule (runner avoids tag by running more than three feet away from his baseline) does not apply at first base IS WRONG! Plain and simple.

I have checked the J/R manual, OBR, the BRD and the JEA and not one of those sources support your theory. Please cite some rule or interpretation that you think concurs with the interpretation that you have seemingly made up.

Re: Connect the DOTS
 

Correct assumption. Given that, I'm not sure why we need the rest of the discussion. There's nothing in the rules that indicates, "A runner is out when he goes out of his established basepath by more than three feet to avoid a tag, except ...."

Quote:

I said, so far alone, that the tag rule does NOT APLLY on a FORCE PLAY at 1B. WHY? It is a disadvantage for the runner not to slide. Forget the interference play, the running lane is established to protect the first baseman from a B/R spikes during a slide/step and other serious BLOWS! This was recognized by Ty Cobb and is not treated under the same scenario at the other bases. It is a force play, no-tag rule at 1B, SAFE!

Wrong analysis. Apparently it *is* an advantage for the runner -- that's why he was "safe" on hte play in the video.

Quote:

I said, so far alone, that F3 missed the tag because a throwing ERROR by F6 pulled F3 off the base and away from the running lane. As a result he was in a poor position to tag a very agile B/R. This also happens on errant throws to other bases. A runner may take an inside route as the catcher is fielding the ball to the outside, far more than this 3-foot BS and SLIDE.

You are correct that the poor throw led to the play. Bit, that's not relevant. And, at the "other bases" you mentioned, while the feet might move more that 3' form the path, part of the body does not -- that's how the runner grabs the base with the hand (as in one of your examples)

Quote:

I said, so far alone, a B/R can legally run from left to right side of the running lane to avoid a tag or to run to second (far more than 3 feet). I have already explained why the runner had to modify his original running lane, but some of you have already questioned that interpretation. It happens routinely at every other base.

Wrong.

Quote:

I asked if this was another J/R moment? Well, am I WRONG, WRONG,WRONG, WRONG? If asking for a clear explanation about some of the baseball rules may upset you, then allow someone else to respond. Somehow I missed something, so connect the dots for me!

I think you were Right, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. ;)

Ah-ha, Little Wordsters!
 

Kalix and fellow Superiors,

With all due respect, I began the thread with a reference to JR, situations not covered in the rule book.

Hilarious comments aside, I made up the "stuff" based on my understanding of the real history of baseball (not Lil Abner D's), the intent of the rulemakers, and above all, the spirit of the game. However, I see that sometimes to keep the harmony and peace, one has to tow the party line and not make waves, which is pretty much the philosophy found on this website. F, CLASS FAILED!

The tag rule does apply at all FOUR bases. The lil wordsters were ALL RIGHT! Each and every one of them. PLEEASEEE FORGIVE little ole me FOR HAVING YOU READ TOO MUCH or MAKING YOU RESPOND! Such wize comments, as the NO Force per rulebook, remind me of those RUNNERS out of George's sock, Jose's nose and Reggie's butt. But nobody saw the humor in them at the time, either. IF ONLY THAT FIRST BASEMAN WOULD HAVE TOUCHED THE BAG OR TAGGED THAT RUNNER, IT WOULD HAVE REMOVED THE FORCE and EDITED THE MY RULEBOOK!

My question concerns the 3-foot rule these top/big/mean dogs stated and someone else confirmed. By the way lil wordsters, that was one hell of a BANGER or BANGOR. Where I come from? That' MY UMPIRE'S DECISION and it's SAFE!

I hope you FLIP-FLOPS learned something while I limp away to heal with a few bite marks! ADIOS FOR A LONG WHILE!

I believe we've seen SA before under a different handle [no, Garth, not WCB]: the "real history...intent of the rulemakers...spirit of the game" silliness, combined with irrational capitalization and general inaccuracy and incoherency, are diagnostic and distinctive.

Fellow 'netsters: I give you SAump, the idiot formerly known [at least on the NFHS site] as TRUEBLUE. Don't let the cyber-door smack you on the brain on your way out SA.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 6th, 2005 at 02:31 PM]

Is that the guy who claimed that pitchers must take their sign while on the rubber to prevent a quick pitch? If it is, that guy was an idiot. He tried to say he played for the Orioles, which he thought would make everyone think he was a rules expert. Eventually after he was proven wrong so many times on several issues, he claimed to be a 12 year old kid just looking to stir up trouble. Then he did a Porter like act of deleting every post he had ever made.

Funny I should write of Porter and deleting posts right after his latest power craze.

Yep, that's the one.

A fit for location, style, content, and intelligence.
If SA ain't TB, they're clones.

CORRECTION, Foul Ball
 

CATASTROPHE, MAJOR ERROR NOTED: TAG VS 3-FOOT TAG

Correction to Original POST: Connect the DOTS
(COPY)
Please don't answer with another [3-foot] rule discussion. If my first assumption is wrong, then logically part of my third assumption is invalid (OOO-ya-OUT).

I said, so far alone, that the [tag] rule does NOT APLLY on a FORCE PLAY at 1B. WHY? It is a disadvantage for the runner not to slide. Forget ....
(END OF COPY)

CATASTROPHE, MAJOR ERROR NOTED: TAG VS 3-FOOT TAG REVERSAL

My apologies to everyone. I never meant to imply that there was any question about a required tag or touch at first base. That was a huge mistake/error on my part. No wonder some of the replies were so FORCE-fully objectionable by RULE. I apologize for wasting your time with that lark of a comment. :<( Original emphasis and all other parts of discussion should pertain only to the three-foot requirement. I meant to say something like that! I understand one (flip-flop) mistake and the thread falls apart. It feels like a group hug or reversing a callr, OOO-ya-OUT!

Keep up the one-liners and messenger attacks >>> FUNNY

Re: CORRECTION, Foul Ball
 

This post is almost unreadable.

hahahaha!