Can forced runner retreat along baseline?

[Frazz]

Hi,

I'm new here, and I'm from Italy. But the italian rulebook is an exact copy of the MLB rulebook... same content, same numbering, same cases... just the page numbers are different.

I have this case I'd like your opinion on:

• 1 out
• runners on 1st and 2nd
• ground ball to 3rd (you call him F5?)

... 5 picks up the ball but is too far from the base to have any hope of playing the forced out on the base and then making a third out in 1st or 2nd. He decides to tag the runner coming over from 2nd. The runner realizes and, to avoid the tag, steps back towards second, awaiting a rundown or a throw to 2nd or 1st... which would let him run to 3rd.

It seems that most italian players and umpires would expect to have the runner called out-by-rule for the sole reason he is stepping back towards 2nd.

What I'd like to know is:

• How would this be ruled in the States?
• If you rule an OBR... on what rule is this based?

The problem is that I read through the rulebook. I played 10 years (many years ago), I now do scoring, I also help out coaching kids... I think I know that rulebook a bit. Chapter 7... paragraph 7.08. There's a lot of cases in there... but nothing that *explicitly* states that a forced runner cannot retreat towards the previous base. There is one statement that, if interpreted in a very peculiar way, could imply this ruling... but none of the players and umpires I asked quoted it (I won't tell you which right now, because I'd like your opinions first ).

Some details I can add:

• the runner is not, in any physical way, interfering with the play... he is just behaving like a trapped (rundowned?) player.
• the runner is not moving away from the baseline, he is just retreating towards the previous base in a straight line
• the runner has not reached the previous base

A last question I'd like to submit... is there any way to contact the MLB Playing Rules Committee to have an official ruling on this or other issues? I ask this because I also dedicate some spare time to the regional FIBS committee (the italian baseball and softball federation) and people there will likely accept only official rulings.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post, and for the terminology I used, which may not be correct,
Marco Rocci

[ozzy6900]

There is nothing wrong with a runner retreating in the manner you described and there is no rule in baseball to prevent this. The assumption of the runner being out is a myth (in baseball).

Also, there is no "baseline". The runner establishes his baseline when the defense makes a play on him. So as long as there is no play being made on the runner, he can run just about anywhere he wants. The belief that there is an imaginary line between bases that the runner must follow is again, another myth.

[bniu]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

There is nothing wrong with a runner retreating in the manner you described and there is no rule in baseball to prevent this. The assumption of the runner being out is a myth (in baseball).

Also, there is no "baseline". The runner establishes his baseline when the defense makes a play on him. So as long as there is no play being made on the runner, he can run just about anywhere he wants. The belief that there is an imaginary line between bases that the runner must follow is again, another myth.

what ur thinking of is the batter runner retreating back towards the plate in softball, which is an out. It's perfectly legal in baseball. Retreating elsewhere on the basepaths when forced is perfectly legal in both softball and baseball.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by bniu

what ur thinking of is the batter runner retreating back towards the plate in softball, which is an out.

Only if it's done to avoid or delay a tag.

BTW, did you bother reading the entire thread? Or is all that proper sentence structure with capitalization and spelled-out words too onerous for you?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by celebur

Or is all that proper sentence structure with capitalization and spelled-out words too onerous for you?

It prolly is.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by bniu

what ur thinking of is the batter runner retreating back towards the plate in softball, which is an out.

I can safely say with an enormous amount of certainty that Ozzy was NOT thinking about softieball.................


Tim.

[mbyron]

Welcome to the forum, Marco.

R2 is not out for his actions in your play. Although he is forced to advance to 3B, this means only that he is not entitled to remain on 2B, NOT that he is forced to run into a tag.

The only rule commonly violated on this play is 7.08(a)1, which requires that a baserunner run directly toward a base when a fielder is trying to tag him. If he runs around a tag (more than 3 feet out of HIS baseline -- notice that does not refer to the line between the bases) then he is out.

7.08(i) does not apply to this case: returning toward the base one from which one has been forced does not constitute "running the bases in reverse order."

As for your Italian umpires: if they regard R2's actions as a violation deserving an out, then they owe you a rules citation to demonstrate exactly which provision he violated. My position is that he has violated none of the baserunning requirements of rule 7, and is thus not out. No one provision declares R2's actions legal because that's not how the rules work: they prohibit certain actions. Unless your umpires can come up with the relevant prohibition, the action is legal. Beware the argument that "everybody knows this is an out."

Finally, your question about getting an "official" ruling. MLB rulings are "official" only for MLB. Your league umpire-in-chief would be responsible for your league. He could contact the MLB press office and ask to be put in touch with the relevant supervisory official for MLB. But I don't think that you'll get much that way, for the reason I just gave.

[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.