Rule change for 7.08(a)(1)
 

Since I'm not working baseball this season, I must be out of the loop. I am surprised this topic has not sparked any conversation on this board. I know that we have always interpreted it the way it is now worded, but it had previously been worded incorrectly, and now lines up with the interpretation.

7.08 Old rule: Any runner is out when (a)(1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between the bases to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball.

7.08 New rule: 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.

This was brought to my attention just this evening by Padres TV guy Matt Vasgersian when the call came up. Jose Cruz, Jr. was called out for running more than 3 feet out of his baseline avoiding a tag.

Progress is being made.:)

That ought to clarify it for those coaches who still try the old "skunk in the outfield" play.

Thanks
David

The change was in last year's books (at least for MiLB). I seem to recall some discussion in it then. Since it's a change to what was already the interp, it wouldn't / didn't get much discussion beyond a yawn -- it was more of an editorial clarification than a rules change.

I put in a search for any discussion on this forum, and it came back with no results.

Are you saying that this makes the "skunk" an illegal action now or that it now fully legitimizes it?

Neither. It's always been legal. this just might clarify it for those who couldn't read / interpret the rules before.

So I make sure I understand, there is no baseline till the defense attempts to put the runner out, then it is a path three feet wide in a straight line from where said runner is to the bag.

Does this apply in NFHS rules?

Yes, just like we have always interpreted it. Actually it's a path six feet wide, three feet on each side of the established baseline.

No. The rule already existed in the FED book. 8-4-2a NOTE.

Or more clearly, yes, the rule is the same in NFHS but was already stated clearly.

What exactly would this clarify for them... other than making it a little clearer that "SITO" is legal?

What I was trying to say is that the OBR rule did not apply to NFHS since OBR rules don't affect FED rules anyway. I perceived the question meant "does this rewording apply to NFHS," and the answer was, and still is, no. I then clearly stated that the same rule already exists in the FED book.

Sounds pretty clear to me.