When is BR Out?
 

From the Giants/Rockies game Tuesday night (bottom of fifth):
R2 (Rajai Davis), no outs. B2 (Omar Vizquel) bunts fair down the first base line. F3 (Todd Helton) fields ball about thirty feet in front of first base as R2 arrives at and (let’s say) rounds third. BR stops about thirty feet down the line and F3 advances on BR at a half-trot for a tagout. BR backs up for about ten feet, then turns around and runs into the Giants third-base dugout without being tagged.

Question: when is BR out?
a) the instant he begins to back up towards home;
b) as soon as he backs up three feet to avoid the tag;
c) immediately upon touching home plate;
d) immediately upon passing home plate or the third base line;
e) as soon as he leaves the thirteen foot dirt circle around home plate;
f) at the point that the umpire judges that BR has abandoned his running duties; or
g) upon entering the dugout.

I think it's (F).

Love these "sliders in between the rules". Note that no one touched this jewel.

I got him out as soon as he is 3 feet off the baseline. Reason? The rules do not favor chasing Rs who bend them for stupidity like this. Next reason? I don't put up with crap. Sue me. Protest, please. I can come up with a dozen ways to play that game and you're still going to be out.

c

or when PU has judged abandonement...it's pretty clear in the PBUC manual

the runner going backwards between 1B and Home and being immediately out is a softball rule.

Well I am not sure where he ever went "3 feet off the baseline" in your thread however, I would go along with F.

"C". I think it's right in PBUC. By extension, I'd also use "D"

He can't be out for abandonment till he reaches first.

The dirt circle applies to D3K.

3' applies to leaving the (his) base path -- you could have this if he ran sideways to avoid a tag.

You are correct, Bob, with your PBUC reference. Base abandonment generally isn't "invoked" when a B-R retreats toward home or just stops on his way to first waiting to be tagged, mainly because SOMEone ends up tagging him. (Of course, if no tag is ever applied and the B-R just walks off the field, he can be called out for abandonment.) In the situation detailed here, once the batter-runner reaches home plate, he is to be declared out. NCAA interp. is the same.

BTW, if said B-R is obstructed during his retreat, it is to be called only if it is intentional.

Not in baseball

Not if he remains in the basepath as he backs up

Yep.

Nope.

You're thinking of when he loses the opportunity to run on a dropped third strike.

I believe "abandonment" requires reaching first base.

Garth,

If a BR retreats beyond home and fails to touch it, I'm banging him out on "d)".

JM

UmpJM, (That sounds so much better)

I read the OP as each option occurring, pretty much in order. Thus the B/R is already out when "d" occurs. If that's not the case, then I would agree with you.

c) and d) would be my choices.

By interpretation c) is definitely correct. But what if the BR retreats and doesn't actually touch the plate? If he retreats past it (i.e. past the third baseline), he is also out.

The batter would also be out by entering the dugout (g), but he would be out well before then if I thought he left the baseline for the purpose of avoiding a tag. I think I would always rule that the runner left the baseline for the purpose of avoiding a tag since I am very unlikely going to allow a runner to veer off, stop short of his dugout steps, and then make a break for 1st.

The ruling would be that the BR is out-of-the-baseline. The ball remains live.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

C, D, and G.

He's out when I say he is!

By rule a B/R who has not reached first base cannot be called out for "abandonment". This is straight from the J/R manual.

He may be called out for desertion...but he can't be called out for abandonment.

UmpJM and other are right...when he touches or passes home plate during his retreat...he should be called out.

so we can split hairs on terminology (abandonment/desertion), but if he gives up his attempt at achieving 1B...at some point to be determined when I see the situation, I'm calling him out.

And that "point" was correctly given to you by CoachJM (UmpJM) and others. Do as you wish in your own games, however.

And that point is determined to be when he touches home, or if he doesn't touch home, when he passes home. What's the issue?

Well, I think we have to give serious consideration to (b). The runner's baseline has been, I believe, more precisely defined in the rules that are new in the last two years. The rule now reads:
"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; ..." [my emphasis]

Before this new language was inserted, we needed an interpretation. But perhaps the new wording of the rule is intended to mean what it says, and the interpretation we are all used to is no longer completely valid. If so, for a runner who has not yet reached first base but is subject to a tag attempt, the baseline can only run one direction-- towards first base. The runner can't be trying to reach home safely, and so the baseline doesn't extend towards home.
I argue that if no tag is attempted, he is out when when he touches or passes home. If a tag is attempted, he would be out once he further retreats 3 feet.

Seems to me that in the OP, no tag has been attempted at all.

The phrase you emphasize is there because a line is the shortest distance between any TWO points.

The rule you are misusing states:

OBR 7.08 Any runner is out when-
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged, unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball;

If you'd rule the runner out onjust because he moves more than three feet towards home on a tag attempt, you would be making up your own rule.

mcrowder-- alternative (b) of the OP refers to a tag attempt: "b) as soon as he backs up three feet to avoid the tag;"

GarthB-- You have quoted the old rule, not the new rule. I did helpfully point out that the rule has changed, and that fact may alter interpretation, but you don't seem to have read for comprehension.
And of course a line is between two points. I think the new rule specifies the two points they have in mind, and in this situation (as opposed to a runner between his occupied and advance base, in which case there are generally two baselines defined by 3 points) one of the two points is the runner himself.

You are right, I forgot that my on disc rule book does not reflect the change in language, HOWEVER, the rule still describes the runner's deviation as "three feet away from his baseline". The baseline runs through the points, if not, any runner in a rundown would be out by your interpretation.

I had posted the word "abandonment" in a post earlier and nobody disagreed per se, but it seems as though there was a discrepancy between desertion and abandonment and I said, who cares what you term it, just call him out when it's appropriate and correct within the rules.

Problem with that is --- desertion doesn't apply yet either.

How about calling him out within the rules as well?

I think you are contending that the baseline runs from the runner to the base, and also extends behind the runner away from the base, and that this notion is required for a runner to escape a rundown. This is simply not correct, as evidenced both by black letter rule ("straight line from the runner to the base") , and by ordinary and long standing practice. Typically, as I alluded in my first post, there are two potential baselines for a runner between two bases, e.g. 1st and 2nd. The two potential baselines generally form an asymmetric V-shape, with the runner at the vertex of the V, and the bases at the tops of the V. If the runner is close to a direct line between the bases, the included angle of the V is large; if the runner is a skunk in the outfield, the angle of the V is acute. The line of extension away from the base past the runner is not in the baseline. For example, if the skunk is subject to a tag attempt, and runs more than 3 feet toward the outfield fence, he is out, even if he runs along one of the extended baselines. Some rundowns occur near the direct line between bases, and so each baseline looks like the extension of the other, but that is a coincidence, not a requirement.

No, actually I would be enforcing the rule as it is written today. The question is if an interpretation which takes into account the new phrasing would allow the runner to continue back toward home (which is not a safe haven) more than three feet during a tag attempt.

Even more curious, the runner can actually run toward the line-connecting-bases and be called out for leaving the baseline even though he is actually getting closer to the "baseline."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

No, you would be enforcing the rule in accordance with your incorrect interpretation of the new wording. An interpretation contrary to that taught at proschool and PBUC. But go ahead. What do they know?:rolleyes:

Dave Reed,

Interesting theory, but I'm not buying it.

The change made to the wording of 7.08(a)(1) was simply a clarification of the proper interpretation of the phrase "his baseline" - namely that it is not the straight line between the bases, but rather a straight line between the runner being played on and the base he is trying to reach.

Whether that base provides a "safe haven" to said runner is NOT relevant to the proper application of 7.08(a)(1). The point is that he's heading to a base and trying to reach it without being tagged (i.e., "safely"), not that the base will provide him protection.

No different if a runner is retreating to a base he has been "forced from" (e.g. an R1 retreating to 1B after the F4 fields a grounder in "front" of him) or a runner is advancing to a base that is occupied by an entitled preceding runner.

The defense does not earn an out by getting a runner to move in the direction of a base that does not provide him sanctuary - they have to tag him. Home plate is a "special case" in that, by long-established official interpretation, a BR retreating toward home when he touches/passes home.

The clarification of the "his baseline" language doesn't change that.

In the immortal words of Crash Davis, "Don't think too much. It can only hurt the team."

JM

UmpJM's post got me thinking(not always a good thing) :)

How is the following situation different from opening post: 1 Out, R1 and R3. Batter hits the ball to F4 who looks R3 back and then chases R1 back to first. R1 overruns first and is standing 2 feet in foul territory. F4 steps onto first thus forcing out BR (eliminating force on R1) then throws home as R3 is attempting to run home. R3 ends up save at home and original R1 steps back onto first. What's the call?

Is R1 allowed to run past his original base without being automatically called out or does he have to be tagged? Is this different then OP with BR retreating past 3rd base foul line?

I think your example of R1 "forced from" is instructive, and it supports what you and GarthB have said: The change in the wording of the rule is a clarification, and is not intended to change the way the game has been played. Further to that point, I notice that the new wording is identical to that included in the 2004 edition of J/R. So the phrasing may be new to OBR, but it isn't new generally.

Finally, with respect to thinking "too much", I do appreciate that you gave my post careful (but not too much!) consideration. Thanks.

Bingo!

A poster with a sense of brains.