Can forced runner retreat along baseline?

[Frazz]

The most common arguments I have been told are:

• "R2 is interfering, in a non physical way, with the defender's try at a double play." This seems silly to me. Nowhere in the rules does it say that avoiding a tag can be considered and interference. 7.08(b) applies to interference, and it seems clear about what an interference is... and (I think) cannot apply.
• "R2 cannot make a travesty of the game by running back." Well this would be 7.08(i), but as stated, it regards running back to a previous base once the next base has been reached... so it doesn't apply.
• "R2 *MUST* run forwards because he is forced." Well nobody has ever been able to show me where this is written.

The one doubt I do have, but which has never been used to justify this ruling is in 7.08(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;". Now... usually in geometry a line extends to infinity both ways... but someone could interpret this a a *base-segment* which extend just from where the player is, to the base he is trying to reach... then moving more than 3 feet back towards the previous base would actually apply.

As said, nobody actually ever proposed this interpretation and I do not expect it to be proposed. OTOH I would expect it to be explicitly described in a case, were it appliable... since it is really quite far fetched.

As for italian rulings... well the FIBS does want to play the same game everybody else is playing. That's the reason our rulebook is an exact match of yours (even though the translation is not always perfect). If MLB umpires consistently interpret rules one way or the other, I'd expect ours to follow.

Regards and thanks for the answers,
Marco

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Frazz

[*]"R2 is interfering, in a non physical way, with the defender's try at a double play." This seems silly to me. Nowhere in the rules does it say that avoiding a tag can be considered and interference. 7.08(b) applies to interference, and it seems clear about what an interference is... and (I think) cannot apply.

It is silly, and I don't know who told you this, but they are wrong. As you correctly point out, the runner is not doing anything to interfere with the play.

Originally Posted by Frazz

[*]"R2 cannot make a travesty of the game by running back." Well this would be 7.08(i), but as stated, it regards running back to a previous base once the next base has been reached... so it doesn't apply.

The "travesty" rule is only for running the bases in reverse order making a mockery of the game, such as running the bases backwards on a home run, for example in an attempt to be funny. This is the only application of this rule, not during an actual play. The runner may certainly run back to the previous base even after reaching subsequent bases. For example, on a caught fly ball the runner can retreat back, touch any bases he passed on his way back to his original base. Perfectly legal and required.

Originally Posted by Frazz

[*]"R2 *MUST* run forwards because he is forced." Well nobody has ever been able to show me where this is written.

Again, you are right. If it is not prohibited by rule or interpretation, it's legal.

Originally Posted by Frazz

The one doubt I do have, but which has never been used to justify this ruling is in 7.08(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;". Now... usually in geometry a line extends to infinity both ways... but someone could interpret this a a *base-segment* which extend just from where the player is, to the base he is trying to reach... then moving more than 3 feet back towards the previous base would actually apply.

The 3 feet only applies to either side of the runner along his established baseline, and does not apply to running back towards his previous base. Again, the runner can retreat along his baseline even when he's avoiding a tag.

Originally Posted by Frazz

As said, nobody actually ever proposed this interpretation and I do not expect it to be proposed. OTOH I would expect it to be explicitly described in a case, were it appliable... since it is really quite far fetched.

Don't read more into the rules than is there. Once again, if it isn't directly addressed and prohibited, there's a good chance that it is legal.

Originally Posted by Frazz

As for italian rulings... well the FIBS does want to play the same game everybody else is playing. That's the reason our rulebook is an exact match of yours (even though the translation is not always perfect). If MLB umpires consistently interpret rules one way or the other, I'd expect ours to follow.

Here is a link to the MLB umpire manual from where we get many of our interpretations. You can buy it here:

ABUA Online Store

[jkumpire]

Sounds like your umpires need some serious rules study.

If you can foot the bill, I know I can cut some time out from my work schedule to come over to your country and do some rules clinics.

Anyone else on the board willing to go?

[greymule]

Frazz, there is a rule in softball that the batter-runner, between home and 1B, cannot "step backward to avoid or delay a tag." It's considered interference. The BR is out and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Maybe that's the root of some of the confusion.

[Frazz]

Originally Posted by greymule

Frazz, there is a rule in softball that the batter-runner, between home and 1B, cannot "step backward to avoid or delay a tag." It's considered interference. The BR is out and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Maybe that's the root of some of the confusion.

That is interesting. Some of the umpires I talked to do softball actually... not baseball. It could be.

Thanks,
Marco

[DG]

If I was F5 I would just go tag 3B when runner gave up on trying to reach, since there is no hope of getting a DP, get the lead runner easily.

Nothing wrong with runner being smart.

[greymule]

"If I was F5 I would just go tag 3B when runner gave up on trying to reach, since there is no hope of getting a DP, get the lead runner easily."

If the play presents itself, you can run R2 back a few steps, throw to 2B for the force on R1, and then you have R2 trapped.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by greymule

Frazz, there is a rule in softball that the batter-runner, between home and 1B, cannot "step backward to avoid or delay a tag." It's considered interference. The BR is out and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Maybe that's the root of some of the confusion.

That was my initial thought too. That rule is also sometimes misunderstood by players (and apparently some local umpires) to apply to all runners in force situations. I've had it come up twice this year alone where the defense was sure the forced runner should be out for simply retreating to their base to delay a tag.

So I could see that both the correct and misunderstood softball rule could easily confuse some umpires doing both games. But Frazz, even in softball, the runner in the OP did nothing wrong.