This play was found on a coaches website, and I wonder if it is legal. With a runners on first and third, he advises sending R1 out into right field and drawing attention to let R3 steal home. He claims it is legal because the runner is not leaving the basepath 'to avoid a tag'. My Fed. rulebook, however, says that a runner is out for 'abandoning his effort to touch the next base'. Can I call R1 out?

I would call R1 out, and eject him for making a travesty of the game.

Coaches come up with thr strangest things.

Bob

Travesty fits the bill very nicely. Maybe unsportsmanlike as well. That coach doesn't want to play baseball - he is playing his own "game". Bye, coach!

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.

Appears to be like the basketball situation that they show on all the blooper shows. Under the basket, inbounds pass, player not in on play falls down and starts acting like he is having convulsions, everyone watches, the team passes ball to the player under hoop who makes uncontested lay-up. Game over.

I would not penalize anyone for this. If a guy runs out into right field and acts like and idiot, AND the opposing team stops and watches, their fault. I would think that if the opposing team shows discipline and plays ball, and that play does not work, the coach, team, and player will look like combined idiots and probably never use it again.

I know if I was a parent, and my coach who is hired to coach these kids correctly, pulls something like this and disrespects the team, the board would be hearing it.

In this situation, if R1 takes off into right field, he is not abandoning, he is stealing. At least that is what you have to consider him doing. The runner establishes his own base line. If the defense is smart enough to ignore R1 and don't get too jumpy, they could retire both runners legaly.

After that play (and probably a good laugh), I would probably excuse the offensive coach for the rest of the game.

This play was around when I was a kid playing Pony league ball back in the 60's and probably longer than that. We called it the "skunk in the outfield" play and I think I only ever saw it work once or twice against a poor team with a rookie coach.

While a lot of people don't like it there is really nothing illegal about it.

SamC

<b>Can the runner really do this?</b>

Yes.

<b>Can I call him out?</b>

Not if you are umpiring by the rules.


This is really no different from the runner who stops half way between first and second trying to draw a throw.

Is it ugly? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

I agree that it is a travesty of the game. I recall reading about this play somewhere else and having it ruled to be such. Now I have to o into search mode. Jim/NYC

The runner on 1B runs 150 feet out and stands behind F9 and doesn't move. How does the defense play it? Do they throw to 2B, and have F6 keep an eye on the runner on third while walking down the baseline toward 1B "attempting to tag the runner"?

Or does the defense ignore the runner and play normally, figuring that the runner has simply placed himself farther from the bases?

Then the runner bowls F9 over and wants obstruction?

"Then the runner bowls F9 over and wants obstruction?"

To see the obstruction, the umpire would have have his back to the pitch/hit/infield etc. "Sorry coach - didn't see it"

Hmmm........seems an opposing coach could merely teach his F1 to step back off the rubber and start running toward R1 as R1 is heading to the outfield.

My bet is most officials might like to interpret R1's actions <u>at that point</u> as leaving his basepath when being played upon. At the very least, the defensive coach could <u>appeal</u> to the officials that this, indeed, is HIS trick play to counter the offense's trick play. Let's see....he's appealing a rule interpretation. Could this be corrected if not originally called?

Most officials I know are not fond of trick plays; they prefer real baseball.
I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to keep runners from heading to the outfield. As stated, I might even consider that making a travesty of the game, but the basepath rule is a much better one to use to get back to baseball.


Just a thought,

Freix

Why fret?
 

Why worry about this runner? Why run after him, that's what the offense wants so R3 can score. Ignore him.

What can happen that's any worse then if he stayed at first? Batter hits grounder to infield...easiest double play ever and R3 is still at third. Fly ball? Let's see R1 tag up!

Base hit? Well R3 would have scored anywayl, so that's nothing new, but if you can't get R1 out you shouldn't be playing the game.

Garth, I've been in a few Fed games where they've tried this play. It's never worked.

Worst case was a coach who clued me in on their play before the game to assure I knew R1's leadoff to the cut of the outfield grass was legal. When they tried their play, his kid ran halfway to 2nd and went back to the outfield grasscut. F1 initially disengaged the rubber and walked toward R1. R1 eventually broke toward 2nd, and F1 threw to F6 at the bag. The runner stopped short of the base, and when F6 went after him, R1 retraced his footsteps instead of taking his new basepath back toward 1B. I immediately rang him up for 3rd out before R3 scored.

Coach came out to argue. I told him details of the basepath, and advised retracing the steps meant R1 left his new basepath when played upon. Seems the coach didn't teach the trick as well as he thought.


Freix

Phillip;

This is were big dogs separate themselves from the little dogs. Big dogs:

1. Don't call the guy out.

2. Don't allow R1 to head into right field.

How is it possible to do both and why is it necessary to do do both. Here's how and why:

I have analyzed the time necessary to make this play work in MLB or NCAA D1 ball and it would work. However, you have never seen this play in MLB or NCAA and you never will. This is the reason that you want to make sure that it never occurs in any of your games. Third World Plays only happen to third world umpires. Allowing this "legal" play to occur in your game will undermine your umpiring authority among your peers. So:

When R1 heads into right field, the BU should call time. Once time is called, R1 must go back to first base. Tell the coach that this play WILL NOT be repeated. Eject the coach if he argues with you. Make sure that you eject the coach for something other than trying to put on this play. Throw him out for being disrepectful. A crafty umpire can quietly light him up and cause him to do something stupid so that he can be legitimately ejected. Say something quietly like "Why don't you try teaching your players real baseball?" That is sure to provoke a comment that you can eject him for.

Keep in mind, that if a senior umpire saw you let a play like this occur in your games, his opinion of your talents would not be good. You owe to your career to minimize the weird stuff on a baseball field. You want your games to run as smoothly as the ones that everyone sees on television. If a coach is screwing with your career and reputation, f$$$ 'em.

Peter

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

In basketball, this is a Technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. NQA.

Past Fed interpretations
 

I asked Fed for past interpretations, and they responded as if I had asked for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Does anyone have Fed interpretations (situations) from years before 2002?

Re: Past Fed interpretations
 

Mule:<p>You should buy a copy of my book, <i>Baseball Rule Differences</i>, the BRD.

It contains scores of past FED rulings that do not appear in the casebook.

I asked the FED rules committee advisor why they did not significantly increase the size or their casebook or at least provide an "accessory volume." He said the various state associations do not want to pay for such a book.

If you think it would be valuable — and I do — you should contact your state representative and lobby for his vote on the committee.

In the meantime, don't hold your breath. Just buy my book. It will get you through the night, I promise.

If you don't like it, I'll give you your money back — and you can keep the book.

Here's where you buy it:

https://www.rightsports.com/products.phpM

I have the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Interpretations that I have downloaded from the NFHS site. They are in Microsoft Word format. I can forward them to anyone who is interested. Contact me at [email protected]

BRD
 

Already bought your BRD, Carl. It's great and I've recommended it to every ump I know.