Establishing Baseline
 

Another question from another forum:

We all know that a baserunner establishes their baseline as a direct line between themselves and the possible bases they are allowed to run to, when the defense is attempting to tag them off base.

Situation: R2 with 0 out, ground ball hit to F5. R2 begins running to 3rd on hit and then meets F5 standing on the established baseline. R2 runs around F5 towards homeplate as F5 tries to tag the runner and then throws BR out at first. I think we can all agree that umpire will probably declare R2 is out for abandoning basepath and the play continues even without a "official" tag of R2. The assumption is that R2 must run directly towards any base they are entitled to, in this case 2nd or 3rd. R2 is out because he ran towards homeplate when F5 tried to tag him.

Questioning Situation: R1, R2 with 0 out, ground ball hit to F5. Everyone agrees that if R2 does the same as situation above he is automatically out without having to tag. 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. Thus, if F5 now picks up the ball and runs towards R2 who is between F5 and 2nd base, 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.

I've never called it this way and have never seen anyone else interpret the baseline as this but thought it was an interesting question.

OBR Rule quotes

7.08
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; or (2) after touching first base, he leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;

In our second situation, should R2 be able to attempt to reach second safely since he is was forced off it? If it is legal why should 2nd be treated differently then 1st or home, since the only base the runner is entitled to run to is third.

Just to be clear, I understand the rule but thought the "different perspective" on the rule was an interesting question.

No, R2 can legally return toward 2nd base avoiding a tag.

Ahem,
 

"I think we can all agree that umpire will probably declare R2 is out for abandoning basepath . . . "

May I be the first to disagree.

Regards,

Are you saying that if F5 is standing on R2's established baseline and R2 runs around F5 towards homeplate when F5 attempts to tag and misses that you would call R2 safe at third??

Could you please expand as to why??

It is clear that the baserunner has to run to third in this situation, and rule 7.08 clearly states:

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;

IN this situation the runner has run at least three feet away from his basline to avoid tag. He isn't avoiding a fielder who is fielding a batted ball, thus the umpire should automatically call him out.

Am I wrong? Where is the flaw in the logic of following this rule?

Well,
 

At no time did the runner abandon the baseline.

You are misapplying a rule and making your own definitions.

Regards,

By Towards Homeplate do you mean on that side of the field rather than the outfield side?

If he semi- circles F5 on the homeplate side then continues toward third, does that change your guys call at all? Assuming that F5 was in the middle of the runners path to third as he fields and faces the runner. My theory has always been that a person properly placed can reach approx 3 feet to either side, so if the player simply jumps to the side and F5 fully extends to attempt a tag and misses that the runner is out of the basepath. Am I wrong? What can I do for the future?

tibear,

By the picture I have in my mind from your description, it would be perfectly proper to call the R2 out for "leaving his baseline to avoid a tag".

I believe that Tim C.'s point is that that is a materially different thing from "abandonment".

JM

Yep,
 

Perfect answer JM.

Regards,

Maybe there is a miscommunication.
When you say 'runs around F5' that seems to imply that he ran around to the outfield side and then went home. If R2 was judged not to exceed the 3 feet as he ran around then it is not an automatic out. The fact that he missed third while F5 was making his throw to F1 means nothing until an appeal is made.
If however, R2 veered to the inside when F5 attempted the tag and then continued directly toward home it seems fair to rule he went beyond his 3 feet and calling R2 out for leaving the baseline is a bit more obvious.

I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were saying that he was near third and simply started running toward home plate. If you meant that he ran AROUND the third baseman on the HP side, and then went to third, you have an out - not for abandonment ... but for running more than 3 feet outside his basepath to avoid a tag.

Then Tim should expand his answer and explain what problem he has with the answer. It helps noone when you simply give a "nope your wrong" answer.

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

Perhaps it would help if you used the proper rule.

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.