good advice
 

Peter is right. At first, I figured that since this was a legal play, I'd just have to deal with it as an ump. But when you think about it, there's no limit to the nonsense that coaches and players could pull if we simply say the rule book doesn't prohibit it. Do we really want to encourage the wiseacres to search through the book to find what they might get away with?

We're empowered to rule on things that the rules don't specifically cover. Call time as Peter says, runner goes back back to first. Tell the coach to stop it. If it happens again, call it exactly what it is--making a travesty of the game, call the runner out, and throw the coach out.

When the rule book says, "A runner may run anywhere on the playing field as long as he is not avoiding a tag," I'll change my opinion.

Normally, I would agree with you on this, but this is such a well-known and common trick play, that every good umpire should be able to recognize it when they see it and handle it appropriately. To do what you suggest - implies that the play is illegal. Everybody knows that it is NOT illegal! So, you only show your ignorance of the rules or your unwillingness to handle a common trick play when you call "Time" and chastize the offensive coach for attempting this play.

There are a handful of trick plays that are common to baseball and that are perfectly legal. Umpires should know these. And, when they happen, it shouldn't be some kind of big surprise that should have you running for your rulebook. Deal with it, I say!

Personally, I could care less if R1 decides to waltz out into right field. "Go for it!" I say. It's stupid baseball. And, if the defense falls for it, then they're even <i>stupider</i>. What do I care?

This play doesn't surprise me - nor should it surprise any of the umpires that participate in this forum. Let it happen, I say. We all know the rule regarding adherence to the baseline and what constitutes abandonment. This violates neither. The rule regarding a "travesty" of the game is reserved for senseless reverse base running, not tactics such as these.
<HR>

<i> Originally posted by David Emerling </i>

<b> Normally, I would agree with you on this, but this is such a well-known and common trick play, that every good umpire should be able to recognize it when they see it and handle it appropriately. To do what you suggest - implies that the play is illegal. Everybody knows that it is NOT illegal! So, you only show your ignorance of the rules or your unwillingness to handle a common trick play when you call "Time" and chastize the offensive coach for attempting this play. </b>

David I agree with your philosophy but not the application. YES, the defense should't be so stupid and fall for this, but there will be some youth teams who see this and will ultimately try it and a young defense who doesn't know any better will probably fall for it.

I do not think the rule-makers invisioned a player leaving first and going to right field. The object is to touch first, second, third and home in order. Not first base, right field, second base, center field, third base, left field and finally home.

In a way, one could argue that is a Travesty of the game because IMO even though the rule states specifically about running bases in reverse order, running the bases in the example giving is also making a game a travesty.

As with anything in baseball, when the game starts to resemble a farce I say stop the nonsense. Ever done a major boys LL game? In that division it's not that uncommon for runners to play that "cat and mouse game" with F1. I give the offense their <i> shot </i> and allow the runner to try and draw a throw from F1, but I will not allow the constant "shenanigans".

I agree with Peter on this issue.

Pete Booth

Re: good advice
 

Didn't this start as a FED post?

FED has specifically stated that it's legal.

A general interpretation of the rules is that if it's not stated as being illegal, it's legal.

You are quite right, Bob. This started with "Philp"suggesting this was a FED play. That was the basis for my answer. While it's great to suggest what one would do at different levels, it doesn't asnwer the questions asked, which were:

Q: I wonder if this is legal? Answer: Yes.

Q. Can I call R1 out? Answer: Not in a FED game where coaches know the rules.

Thanks to everyone who added their two cents (sometimes three cents) worth. I've decided that if I see this play, God forbid, I'll ring him up for 'abandoning his effort to go directly to the next base'. There is much room for interpretation here, but this play is taking baseball to the outter limit. Not only will I forbid the runner from running around in the outfield, but I will also keep him from doing cartwheels on the basepath, carrying helium-filled balloons, and climbing out of a tiny, little car after driving to first base.

Philp, I respect your decision to handle this in the way you describe. As long as you realize that <i>this</i> particular "trick play" is well-known to be perfectly legal. The other nonsense you describe has no history, so you could handle them as you desire and set whatever precedence that needs to be set for runners running the bases carrying helium balloons.

Personally, I think you run the risk of being labeled an umpire that does not understand the rules very well when you prevent a team from employing an age old tactic that actually appears in several coaching books.

The fact that it is a poor tactic does not make it illegal. And, in the FED casebook, it is <i>specifically</i> mentioned as being legal.

I am always leary of interjecting my personal views of how I think the game of baseball ought to be played in my rulings. I try to detach myself and simply prevent those things that are clearly illegal.

You could make the following argument: How else are these players and coaches going to learn that many of these silly tactics, in the long run, DON'T WORK? Sure, they may experience some success at the younger level, but you will never see the big boys attempt this silliness. And that's because they've already learned that lesson somewhere along the way. I say, let them learn it!

I didn't realize this play was specifically mentioned in the Fed case book as being legal. If that's the case, then obviously we have to allow it. Looked quickly through the 2002 book just now and didn't see it. Where is it?

BRD 401
 

Sorry, I didn't mean the FED casebook. This tactic is <i>directly</i> addressed in BRD. See Section 401. In particular, OFF INTERP 243-401 and 159-401. Yes, I realize those are OBR interpretations, but BRD recommends you adopt those interpretations in your FED games.

And I would guess the <i>reason</i> BRD makes such a recommendation is because the way we deal with such issues as running the bases in reverse order, abandonment, and baseline adherence really doesn't differ between FED and OBR.

This tactic is so common, and has been seen so many times, that it is <i>directly</i> addressed in an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION.

On that basis, everybody can draw their own conclusions on how an umpire should handle it when it happens.

Personally, I'm going to "let it happen", and deal with whatever fallout occurs. I don't find it particularly complicated from an umpiring perspective. Now, the defense might be completely befuddled - but that's not <i>my</i> problem.

If the offense attempts this play, there is a good chance the offensive coach understands how baseline infractions are <i>supposed</i> to be handled. If the defensive coach complains about the tactic, there's a good chance that there is little this coach understands about baseline infractions anyway. It might be your opportunity to educate him. And, having done that, you've performed a useful service as an umpire to a coach who should learn to defend this tactic, sooner or later. By allowing it to happen, you have sharpened the learning curve and allowed it to happen <i>sooner</i>.
<HR>

<b>Thanks to everyone who added their two cents (sometimes three cents) worth. I've decided that if I see this play, God forbid, I'll ring him up for 'abandoning his effort to go directly to the next base'. </b>

This reminds me of something Dr. Levin, a professor I had in Logic years ago, once told me. "Mr. Benham, if you're not going to accept the answer, don't ask the question."

Garth:

Thanks for your answer. I was disturbed by Philip's response as well. Virtually all of the big dogs that replied to him told him NOT to call R1 out. Some of the big dogs would have allowed the play and others like me would have taken aggressive steps to prevent it. He narrowed in on my advice and went overboard by illegally calling R1 out.

I am not going to allow this play for the reasons stated but I NOT going to set myself for a protest by calling R1 out. Good umpires can get what they want without doing something illegal. After all, we have all the power. Powerful people know how to invent loopholes and evade the rules.

Peter

It's not in the case book -- but it is a FED ruling.

As I stated before (an early response to this thread):

"Legal play.

FED 2000 Interpretations, Situation 19.

If the defense doesn't want R3 to steal home, ignore R1. He's just farther from second and more likely to be forced out."

If you want to rule otherwise, that's up to you. Just recognize that you're doing so.

Fed interpretations
 

I have the 2002 interpretations, but where can I get the previous years'? I would think they'd all make it into the case book, but apparently they don't. I'll try the Fed site.

Re: Fed interpretations
 

Can't get them at the FED site. You need to print them off each year and keep them.

Re: Fed interpretations
 

<i> ]Originally posted by greymule </i>

<b> I have the 2002 interpretations, but where can I get the previous years'? I would think they'd all make it into the case book, but apparently they don't. I'll try the Fed site. </b>

Recommendation: E-mail or phone the FED and tell them what you are looking for. Since we are in the electronic age, they should have these interps available.

Pete Booth