Establishing Baseline

[tibear]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Perhaps it would help if you used the proper rule.

If someone is using the improper rule, then quote the proper rule.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Perhaps you should expect less from Tim since he doesn't owe you anything.

If someone answers a question, you owe it to the person to give a complete answer.

[Tim C]

I "owe" you nothing.

Regards,

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

If someone is using the improper rule, then quote the proper rule.

What logic!

I think Tim did exatly the right thing. You stated: ""I think we can all agree that umpire will probably declare R2 is out for abandoning basepath . . . "

He responded to THIS statement by indicating that, despite your assumption, he disagreed.

What is your problem with that?

Are you faulting him for your failure to ask "why?"

[ozzy6900]

SIGH!
How can you expect to handle coaches when you cannot handle criticism from your own brothers? If we catch the mistake what do you think a coach will do to on the field?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by tibear

If someone answers a question, you owe it to the person to give a complete answer.

tibear,

Would a corrolary to this proposition be that if someone initiates a post on this forum, AND makes presumptive statements about "everyone agreeing" with assertions made in that post, that he owes it to the readers of the forum to have done some minimum degree of "due diligence" in correctly understanding the rules he is posting about?

One point that you seem to be mistaken on in regard to the runner's "legal baspath". The baserunner is allowed to attempt to advance or retreat on the basepaths, regardless of whether he is "legally entitled" to the base he is attempting to advance or retreat to. So, even if the runner has been "forced" from 2B, it is pefectly legal for him to attempt to retreat to 2B and this is not a violation of the proscription from "leaving his baseline to avoid a tag".

JM

[3appleshigh]

this is simply a "Words mean things" issue. You used the word abandonment, and Tim {correctly so} pointed out that this was an incorrect word for your situation. It is the same as calling a runner out for "Obstruction" or a fielder for "Interference" By simply putting the wrong word you post changed from right to wrong. Even though the meaning of what you "thought" you were saying didn't change.

[LakeErieUmp]

In your second scenario you said:
"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."

NO. First, McCrowder was right that a runner returning to a previous base is not out of his established baseline. AND in your scenario you have F5 throwing to F3 which removes the force. It's not a forceout UNTIL you have a tag runner/tag base. But you had neither.

[DG]

Originally Posted by tibear

Then Tim should expand his answer and explain what problem he has with the answer. It helps none when you simply give a "nope your wrong" answer.

Don't expect straight answers here. Some delight at throwing curve balls. For this case "abandonment" is the key word and if you do a rules search on this word you will be able to hit the curve ball.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

Don't expect straight answers here. Some delight at throwing curve balls. For this case "abandonment" is the key word and if you do a rules search on this word you will be able to hit the curve ball.

If you'll read his post, you'll see that Tim's response was a fast ball, straight down the middle.

"EVerybody agrees that...."

Nope.

Now then, if the post had asked. "Is this......?"

The responses would have been different.

Again, he screwed up and wants to blame everyone else.

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you'll read his post, you'll see that Tim's response was a fast ball, straight down the middle.

"EVerybody agrees that...."

Nope.

Now then, if the post had asked. "Is this......?"

The responses would have been different.

Again, he screwed up and wants to blame everyone else.

With another sentence Tim could have explained why he disagreed, but no. Why leave someone looking for enlightenment no light?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

With another sentence Tim could have explained why he disagreed, but no. Why leave someone looking for enlightenment no light?

You still don't get it. Tibear posted that he had the answer, and that everyone agreed. How's that "looking for enlightenment?"

[tibear]

Did I screw up by using the the abandonment? Yes!
Do I understand what abandonment is? Yes!
My original comment of "the umpire will certainly call the runner out" was correct and instead of answering the question as asked you took the situation where I used an incorrect term (which everyone knew was incorrect BUT still knew what I was talking about) and confused the whole situation by saying I was wrong in my assumption that the runner was out. (Again you might say that wasn't what you were saying.) But that is the problem when you leave the situation in a "half-answered" state.

The problem I have with some of the answers is that some people seem to take great thrills in providing half answers and then blasting people when they ask for further explanation.

Isn't is just common courtesy that if you know what the person is asking that you try to answer it as completely as you possibly can?

Everyone knows that the question asked was originally about the runner's basepath and where it starts and stops. JM provided a great answer, "One point that you seem to be mistaken on in regard to the runner's "legal baspath". The baserunner is allowed to attempt to advance or retreat on the basepaths, regardless of whether he is "legally entitled" to the base he is attempting to advance or retreat to. So, even if the runner has been "forced" from 2B, it is pefectly legal for him to attempt to retreat to 2B and this is not a violation of the proscription from "leaving his baseline to avoid a tag"." because it not only describes what the baseline is but why.

I thought this was a forum where umpires could ask questions, shoot the sh#t, complain about coaches and players and ultimately learn something.

One of the reason why I tend not to have problems with any of my games is perhaps I overlook it when people use the wrong terminology for a particular instance. When a coach comes out and asks why his batter couldn't "steal" first when the catcher dropped the third strike. I reply with, "Coach, the batter can attempt to run to first on a dropped third strike only when there are two outs or there is no runner at first at the time of the pitch." Why do I get the feeling that some umpires here would simply say, "Batter, can't steal first." knowing full well the coach meant trying to run to first.

Perhaps I'm wrong and maybe asking questions and learning aren't the main objectives of this forum.

I don't have any hard feelings towards anyone, but just wish that you would be straight forward in your answers without getting personal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

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.

In this instance, second base is treated (nearly) the same as home plate. But, I don't think either is treated the way you want to treat it.

That is, BR is allowed to retreat toward home and R2 is allowed to retreat toward second. The difference is that BR is out if he reaches home; R2 is not out if he reaches second.

One of the reason why I tend not to have problems with any of my games is perhaps I overlook it when people use the wrong terminology for a particular instance. When a coach comes out and asks why his batter couldn't "steal" first when the catcher dropped the third strike.

That's a good philosophy on the field. Here, though (and in most other discussions amongst umpires) we expect umpires to use the proper terminology.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tibear

That is the exact situation and taking it a step further the question was why is R2 allowed to run to second when avoiding a tag since second base is not a base he is "entitled" to??

Why is second treated differently then first, home plate or left field for that matter? If the runner moves more then 3 feet outside his basepath which is a direct line between himself and third(the only base open to him), including retreating to second base, should be called out?

Again, I've never called it this way but was asked a question and not sure why second is treated differently.

Not sure what you might mean by "second base is not a base he is entitled to". Why - the play is not over yet? There's no penalty for running backward in the basepath (in this case, back toward 2nd), nor should there be. Perhaps he backs up long enough to allow BR to be safe. Conversely, perhaps he forces F5 to make a play at first on BR, and they get BR out ... poof - your runner is now "entitled" (if that's what you meant by it) to be back at the base he was returning to.