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.

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

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

Hahahaha,
 

I "owe" you nothing.

Regards,

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?"

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the answer Bob.

As for the terminology, I certainly agree that an umpire should use the correct terminology but in my opinion (for whatever that's worth :) ) noone should be dished simply because they used an incorrect term. The correct term should be stated and then the conversation continued. After all we're here to learn but to step on each other. Are we??

tibear
 

So are you telling me how to post?

Regards,

There are different methods of teaching, and different methods of learning. Explaining that your sentence (or question -- whatever it was) is "wrong" is one way -- and can be effective. It forces you to try to figure out what was wrong and correct it. You learn on your own, and might jsut find something else in the book that you didn't know (or "knew" but was wrong).

I agree that if you explain that the sentence is wrong can be effective, but simply saying "I disagree" doesn't do anything.

What does he disagree with: the out call? The baseline established? The terminology used? The font used?

Tim,

I'm not telling you how to post. I am trying to let you know that I didn't think your post was helpful and that if you wanted me to learn, which I hope was the intent, that perhaps there are different ways of doing that.

I realize there is a lot of wisdom that is on this site and that is why I come here. I may ask some strange questions and sometimes use the wrong terminology but then again who's perfect and aren't strange questions the perfect thing for this forum?

If we only got the simple questions about basic rules, it would get boring very fast. However, realize that some of us haven't been umpiring for 30 years and are still trying to learn.

Dear tibear:
 

Not all posts on this site are "helpful" (nee: dudeinblue, canadadump, and other HOF members).

When we started posting on these sites 10 years ago it was much like a bunch of guys sitting at a table having a cold adult beverage.

We could kid, attack, defend, parry and thrust.

We have lost that because some people take offense to every little thing.

I guess that is the modern world.

I will continue to post as I see fit. Not every thread is about learning.

I teach umpires statewide and I use my style.

You don't care for it . . . I can easily live with that.

Regards,

I disagree.

Take this for what it's worth, but your recent posts remind me of the guy at camps / clinics who gets feedback and then responds with, "yeah, but ..."

Thanks Ti. We were not aware that you had been crowned king of the forum. The rest of us will now follow your personal rules of internet umpire forum etiquette. To misquote Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday - "Your hypocrisy knows no bounds."

The correct term is dissed.
From M-W.com:
Main Entry: dis
Pronunciation: 'dis
Variant(s): also diss
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): dissed; dis·sing
Etymology: short for disrespect
1 slang : to treat with disrespect or contempt : INSULT
2 slang : to find fault with : CRITICIZE

Just be aware of the "arm's length" call, in judging whether the runner exceeded the 3'.

One thing you should learn: from THIS thread: is that words mean something, sometimes something very specific; and that it is a BAD idea, here or ON THE FIELD, to be careless about what words you use.

The method Tee used to help teach you that [yes, it is actually a method; I suspect he may even be aware of this] is the same one traditionally used to teach aspiring laywers, sometimes called the "Socratic" method [after Socrates]. The teacher asks questions and makes controversial assertions to force the student to think and examine the student's own ideas and assumptions, rather than simply spoon-feed info. The principal drawback of this method is that, for it to work, the student has to be both willing and able to understand and consider the question.

And no-one on this forum "owes" you anything.

"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."

We all DON'T know, because a runner establishes her BASEPATH when attempting to reach a base. There are two BASELINES, (1) From home to first base, (2) From third base to home. They are marked by chalk or some other substance.

Bob

Uh, wrong Bob.

There is no such thing as a "baseline" that is marked on any field. These are defined in Rule 1 as "foul lines." They are the two lines running from home plate to the outfield fence on the first and third base sides of the diamond. The only time the word "baseline" is used is in conjunction with a baserunner and his baseline. That is why Rule 7.08(a)(1) uses the term "baseline" when explaining the 3 feet rule. Baseline and basepath are interchangeable terms in this usage.

The runner establishes his/her own baseline, and it can be between any sets of bases. It is the position between the runner and the base that they are advancing or retreating to, at the time a tag attempt is being made on them.

Tibear, I think the problem is this statement, at least for me: "I think we can all agree that umpire will probably declare R2 is out for abandoning basepath". I can't agree that R2 should be called out for running out of the baseline, because I don't know which baseline he established.

Now, as far as using the correct terminology, that is very important in discussions regarding rules and how you interpret them. I would rather use a incorrect term here in this forum, take the heat for it amoungst friends and LEARN from it so I don't make the same mistake with a fire breathing coach in a real situation.

I learned a great deal starting out by having 'pre-game' meetings with my partners after every game. These were no holds barred at times, where I had to defend my actions on the field, whether it be a bad call, poor positioning, or a missed responsibility. These learning opportunities don't occur much now days, we rush to the game and rush right home.

This forum takes the place of those learning opportunities, don't waste them by arguing. Ask the questions, listen to the answers, take what you need, leave the rest and say thanks for the input.

And I have seen good base-runners who were able slow down, dodge, change direction (without going more than 3 feet in either direction from the attempted tag,) and cause a defender to miss a tag even though he/she was standing directly in front of the base-runners established basepath at the time of the tag attempt.