running out of baseline?

[TriggerMN]

Yankees-Red Sox tonight, Red Sox have a runner on 1st and nobody out. Ground ball to the 2nd baseman, who pivots and throws to 2nd base. The ball is going to beat the runner by 30 feet, so the runner gives himself up and runs out of the baseline towards right field to avoid the relay throw. However, the wild throw goes into left field, the runner returns to the baseline, touches second, and goes to 3rd.

Should this runner have been called out for running out of the baseline?

[DG]

Originally posted by TriggerMN
Yankees-Red Sox tonight, Red Sox have a runner on 1st and nobody out. Ground ball to the 2nd baseman, who pivots and throws to 2nd base. The ball is going to beat the runner by 30 feet, so the runner gives himself up and runs out of the baseline towards right field to avoid the relay throw. However, the wild throw goes into left field, the runner returns to the baseline, touches second, and goes to 3rd.

Should this runner have been called out for running out of the baseline?

No. A runner is called out for running out of the baseline when avoiding a tag.

[Edited by DG on Jul 18th, 2005 at 01:00 AM]

[mcrowder]

Trigger - there is no rule that says it's illegal to run out of the baseline.

DG - slightly, but importantly incorrect. It's base-PATH, not base-LINE.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Trigger - there is no rule that says it's illegal to run out of the baseline.

DG - slightly, but importantly incorrect. It's base-PATH, not base-LINE.

Hmmm!!!??

My version of the OBR uses the words "direct line between bases", "baseline."

"slightly, but importantly incorrect"?

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jicecone

Hmmm!!!??

My version of the OBR uses the words "direct line between bases", "baseline."

Which is one of the 237 known errors in the OBR.

[mcrowder]

So, Jice... you have a runner round 1st base normally, who as it turns out is more than 3 feet from a line between 1st and 2nd base. You calling him out? Didn't think so. You calling him out if someone tries to tag him as he's returning to the bag, but still more than 3 feet from that line between the bases? Hope not.

[Tim C]

"DG - slightly, but importantly incorrect. It's base-PATH, not base-LINE."

-------------

As an anecdotal reference only:

Statements such as this are one reason one retired MLB umpires says of "Internet Umpires":

"They spend more time with mental masturbation than umpiring real games."

I think we get overly technical most of the time. I think we all understood the meaning of what DG wrote.

[Matthew F]

Baseline, basepath - it's all the same and is established once a play is being made on a runner.

No need to get worked up over something so trivial.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Matthew F
Baseline, basepath - it's all the same and is established once a play is being made on a runner.

No need to get worked up over something so trivial.

You'd think that. But many of those who don't understand there is a difference between a ball hitting the bat and the bat hitting a ball also believe that the runner must run in a direct line between the bases. Heck, there are still those who believe that baseball is a game between two teams of nine players.....

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 18th, 2005 at 02:30 PM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by mcrowder
So, Jice... you have a runner round 1st base normally, who as it turns out is more than 3 feet from a line between 1st and 2nd base. You calling him out? Didn't think so. You calling him out if someone tries to tag him as he's returning to the bag, but still more than 3 feet from that line between the bases? Hope not.

God , and I thought I had too much time to kill at work!

Beat me, whip me, hit me again.

I loves it!!!!!!

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by GarthB

You'd think that. But there many of those who don't understand there is a difference between a ball hitting the bat and the bat hitting a ball also believe that the runner must run in a direct line between the bases. Heck, there are still those who believe that baseball is a game between two teams of nine players.....

Agreed, but saying it's a basepath instead of a baseline doesn't alleviate that problem. Someone who believes you must run directly from base to base, will believe that whether it's called a baseline, basepath or anything else.

Remember, not all lines are straight ...a circle for example.

[mcrowder]

Sorry for offending, Tim. I assure you (and think I've proven over time here - ironically ON the internet) that I'm not just an internet umpire.

To me, this semantic difference is important, and is often the reason that otherwise good umpires (on the field, not the net) often get this rule wrong. (And OBR didn't help with their misprint). I stress this difference at both my umpires' clinics and my coaches' clinics.

When you tell someone there's no such rule about running out of a baseline, you make them think. You make them define what they really meant, and apply the rules to the case at hand

I guarantee that if there was no myth that running outside the baseline was illegal, the initial post would not have ever been a question in anyone's mind.

[David Emerling]

I think the current wording is neither a misprint nor oversight. I think it reads exactly as the rules makers intended. The rule simply represents an oversight that has been rectified through tradition. A practical application of the rule has evolved but I'm not so sure the current way it is applied is necessarily what was originally intended.

I don't think the rules makers envisioned a fielder going out to tag a runner who strayed 30-feet out of the baseline (i.e. a straight line between the bases).

Example: R1 takes his leadoff 30-feet out into right field. The pitcher throws over to F3 who then goes out to tag R1 who is holding his ground in shallow right.

The current application of this rule permits this. Since there is now a play being made on R1 he must stay within 3-feet of a line between his current position and 1st base and his current position and 2nd base.

When this rule was first crafted, I'll bet you they (whoever they were) would say that this runner is out and F3 has no obligation to go out there to tag R1.

I could be wrong ... this is just a hunch. I wouldn't be too quick to classify it as a misprint or mistake - an "oversight" is probably more accurate.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jul 19th, 2005 at 12:58 AM]

[Tim C]

mcrowder:

I am not offended. That is why I used the term "anecdotal" so you would see that I was just using this specific post to make a point.

Now Garth and I totally disagree on the following:

I think we are way silly when we take a broadcaster to task when he says "foul tip" when it is really a "foul ball". I also don't think it has much value whether you use "obstruction" and "interference" interchangably.

I think base "path" and base "line" is also a silly determination.

It was not meant to mean your post was silly it is just the nitpicking internet umpires chase.

I think we tend to worry more about "form" than "function" in internet forums.

[mcrowder]

Tim - fair enough.

I probably react a little strongly on this one, since it's a personal POE in my clinics, and I do see value in making sure umpires (especially new ones) understand the difference between a basepath and a baseline.

But I see your point, especially on the other two. (Then again, any chance to show what a moron McCarver is must be taken)