To uphold or deny?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

In OBR, R3 must touch 3rd base again on his way to home. Whenb he over ran 3rd, he is considered between 3rd and 2nd so in order to go home, he must touch 3rd. I think that many people are trying to apply "Last Time By" but it does not apply in this case.

Take the same play (remember starting with R3), but when R3 overruns third, the defense makes a move to tag him. R3 runs directly to second, reaches it and is standing on the base when the defense tags him. Now what's your ruling?

Me? I'd have an out.

And, since R3 can't "retreat" to second, he can't "retreat past third." So, he's not required to touch third again.

[greymule]

Take the same play (remember starting with R3), but when R3 overruns third, the defense makes a move to tag him. R3 runs directly to second, reaches it and is standing on the base when the defense tags him. Now what's your ruling?

Me? I'd have an out.

My instinct would go the other way. I'd say that after R3 overruns 3B, he is between 3B and 2B and (1) must touch 3B on the way home, but (2) is free to retreat to 2B without touching 3B. But you might persuade me that if R3 overran on the foul side of the line, he would then have to touch 3B on his way back to 2B.

Just a slight overrun or overslide? Vicinity of the base and can go either way without touching. But I admit I'm just speculating from gut feeling. OBR authorities might well rule otherwise.

Also, it seems to me that "last time by" would apply in these cases. If R3 overran 3B down the LF line but missed 3B, and then touched 3B on the way home, he's fulfilled his obligation through "last time by."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Take the same play (remember starting with R3), but when R3 overruns third, the defense makes a move to tag him. R3 runs directly to second, reaches it and is standing on the base when the defense tags him. Now what's your ruling?

Me? I'd have an out.

And, since R3 can't "retreat" to second, he can't "retreat past third." So, he's not required to touch third again.

I think the crucial premise of this reasoning is: R3 started the play having legally acquired 3B. Thus, he's not entitled during the play to retreat to 2B, which would constitute running the bases in reverse order.

Being legally entitled to 3B throughout the play, "last time by" does not apply, and R3 need not retouch 3B when he scores on the overthrow.

Interesting.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think the crucial premise of this reasoning is: R3 started the play having legally acquired 3B. Thus, he's not entitled during the play to retreat to 2B, which would constitute running the bases in reverse order.

Unless he is attempting to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game, his retreat to 2nd is legal.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Unless he is attempting to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game, his retreat to 2nd is legal.

dash,

I would disagree.

Once a runner legally attains a base, and the pitcher subsequently delivers a pitch (or even engages the rubber with possession of the ball in preparation to make a subsequent pitch), the runner may NOT retreat to a previous base for any reason. (7.01 Comment).

I agree with mbyron's assertion.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

dash,

I would disagree.

Once a runner legally attains a base, and the pitcher subsequently delivers a pitch (or even engages the rubber with possession of the ball in preparation to make a subsequent pitch), the runner may NOT retreat to a previous base for any reason. (7.01 Comment).

I agree with mbyron's assertion.

JM

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't have any of my baseball books here, but from OBR:

7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. Rule 7.01 Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

In the OP, the pitcher had not assumed his pitching position when the runner retreated.

Bob - if you quoted that rule without referring to your baseball books, I am truly impressed.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

In the OP, the pitcher had not assumed his pitching position when the runner retreated.

....

Dash,

Huh?!?!!? WTF are you talking about?

In the OP, the R3 STARTS on 3B (hence, the appellation, "R3"). The pitcher then presumably pitches the ball because I don't understand how the batter could have...

... hit(s) the ball out in front of the plate....

if the pitcher never pitched it.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

In the OP, the R3 STARTS on 3B

Oops. You're right. Thanks for not being snotty about it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Unless he is attempting to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game, his retreat to 2nd is legal.

I don't have any of my baseball books here, but from OBR:

7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. Rule 7.01 Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

[GA Umpire]

I agree with UmpJM and others. Since he is an R3, he cannot retreat back to 2B so he cannot be considered between 2B and 3B. Had he been an R2, then I would uphold the appeal.

Touching the bases in order does not include the one he started from. He has already touched that one in order.

I'm interested if NCAA has an official ruling on this. If not, would they be inclined to lean towards no appeal/appeal?

[bsaucer]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Unless he is attempting to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game, his retreat to 2nd is legal.

I don't see this as retreat to second. He legally acquired third base, but was a few feet off his base. The fact that he overran the base simply makes him liable to be tagged out while off base. However he IS "on" third, and therefore occupies it.

I once saw an MLB game where a slightly different situation occured: Batter hits ground ball and beats throw to first base. After running several feet past first base, he made a slight left turn before walking back to first base. The umpire called him out. (He may have been tagged while returning). This call drew an argument from the offensive team. The umpire ruled that he "turned" toward second.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Take the same play (remember starting with R3), but when R3 overruns third, the defense makes a move to tag him. R3 runs directly to second, reaches it and is standing on the base when the defense tags him. Now what's your ruling?

Me? I'd have an out.

And, since R3 can't "retreat" to second, he can't "retreat past third." So, he's not required to touch third again.

I see what you're getting at, but when the runner goes home, he physically steps over 3rd base (or slightly around it). When he goes to 2nd, if you draw his path on paper, he's making a "wide turn" if you look at it. I wouldn't have an out in your scenario.