I think that's quite a stretch. Yes, a runner can run wherever he wants... but say in the OP that he retreated almost all the way to 2nd before realizing it was not caught, and then ran across the mound to score... you're not calling this a miss (2 really) of third base?

Like I said above, I'm not calling this a "return to 2nd" and thus a miss of 3rd unless he is actually closer to 2nd than home.

By the rules, I don't have to. But, I agree sometimes you just have to umpire

:confused:

Even if they appeal it? That doesn't qualify as a gross miss to you?

What are they going to appeal? Give me a reference of the definition of "gross miss." by rule. The ball was not caught, therefore there was no requirement to return to second. Furthermore he didn't tag second again so he doesn't have to tag third again. He didn't miss (3b). Did he go out of the (baseline) traveling from third to home? Not by rule.

8-2-6l -Last Time By. "If a runner correctly touches a base that was missed either in advancing or returning, the last time he was by the base, that last touch corrects any previous baserunning infraction." He didn't miss 3b nor did he go by or have to go by 3b.

You have to use your imagination here because, you just aint going to see it happen. EVER

Ummm, I had everything in this play but a runner who knew he had to go back to 3rd to touch 2nd. If he had returned directly to 2nd, we would have had it. And we've all seen them return directly back.

Jiccone - I believe you are wrong on this. Regardless of whether or not he NEEDED to go back, he DID, so he must retouch 3rd.

If he didn't need to go back, but did, and simply stepped over 3rd and then ran home, according to you he could run right home. Does that seem right to you?

This is what you wrote "he realizes his gaffe and takes a few steps (lets call it 2)". I say, show me in the rules that 2 steps, 4 steps or 12 steps constitutes going back. What is the criteria for making this determination? I thought we officiated by rule reference not I think, IMO, I once heard, my buddy told me., there's an imaginary line I go by. And yes there are some rules that our discretion is called for in order to make a decision.

So if he didn't miss 3b in advancing, there was "no previous baserunning infraction" (8-2-6l) that needed to be corrected. Now the question is what constitutes going back to second and at what point does the application of LTB then get enforced or when is it applicable again. I say that the determination is not defined until he touches second again because "theoritically" he has no defined path by rule until played upon. He is free to run.

If you believe I am wrong, thats fine. Just show me by reference where and why?

A runner acquires a base by touching it OR passing it, as you know. If R2 retreats "past" 3B without touching it, as if on his way to retouch 2B, then he is required to re-acquire it by touching it again as he advances. Whether or not he has "retreated past the base" is a judgment call.

Your interp makes the "last time by" provision of the baserunning rules completely unnecessary: once a runner touches the base, he can go wherever he wants.

For a FED citation, look at the new case concerning "last time by," 8.2.6H.

"A runner acquires a base by touching it OR passing it, as you know. If R2 retreats "past" 3B without touching it, as if on his way to retouch 2B, then he is required to re-acquire it by touching it again as he advances. Whether or not he has "retreated past the base" is a judgment call."

Absolutely correct. He is out on appeal, for not re-touching. Not because of the path he choose ,and that is my point here. And until he re-touches second again and playing action has been complete, can the defense be aware that an infraction of missing the base while returning has been violated by rule.

In 8.2.6H the ball was caught so there is a requirement for the runner to return, by rule. How he gets there is up to him and if it is the wrong way and he misses second by whatever distance, then he is not out because of his path, direction and distance missed, he is out because of an appeal that his path, direction and distance missed caused him to miss the base, which is in violation with 8-2-6L.

In the op the ball was NOT caught and the runner hesitated and took two steps toward second. So what. Had he returned to second, for which his path and direction have no restrictions on (unless played upon), he would be subject to appeal for not re-touching third, in accordance with 8-2-6L. But not untill then.

I believe we all agree that the OP is nothing. We were further discussing "how far" toward 2nd the runner might have to go to be considered returning to 2nd (and thus missing 3rd) - the "judgement" part of the rule you quoted. I strongly believe your judgement of "as long as he doesn't touch 2nd he's not returning to 2nd - thus never missed 3rd" is faulty.

This was the very question I asked in the OP.

I've asked several umpires I trust with rules and, like here, we all agree if he "passes" 3rd in his retreat he must retouch.

Mbcrowder's answer I think makes the most technical sense. If he crosses a line drawn between 1st and 3rd (through the diagonal of the bases), he probably has "passed" 3rd.

As for a reference you asked for, the last time by reference is enough. Because if he passed 3rd on his retreat to 2nd, then he would have to "pass" it again to go home, no? And so if he doesn't touch it on that last pass, he's subject to be out on appeal.

For some reason which you haven't quite untangled, you do not think he has "passed" the base on a retreat because of his purpose for retreat or result of the play.

Good discussion but, the rule is enforced based upon wether or not he has "Touched" the base last time by, or last time he passed. The question is what is an acceptable definition for having being considered as "passing the base. Besides your having talked to "several umpires", and "Mbcrowder's answer" this is not definitized by rule.

Does a runner not being played upon, have to run directly to the next base? I think not. So the rule allows you to run as you see fit and your saying that your going to forget that rule, in order to apply another one. Well give me a reference that allows that.

I am really open to being convinced otherwise.

I think we're just talking in circles at this point. Of course he can run wherever he wants when no play is being made on him. But if he passes a base on a retreat, he has to touch that base again before proceeding, plain and simple. It doesn't matter why he retreated, if he ended up having to, or anything else.

If you say those 2 steps isn't passing 3rd, that's cool. But at some point he WILL pass that base, and when he does then he has to retouch it on his way home. Is the bolded statement where we disagree?

Not at all, I agree. Its how he gets there that I can't find restrictions on unless he is being played upon. It is JUST your difinition of what constitutes passing a base, along with the other rules in the book that I have been questioning.

Have a good day and I have a double tonight, the weather is going to be in the 70's and clear and life is good.

Good discussion

No, my "answer" is not in the book. The book merely says, "it is the umpires judgement...". My answer was an attempt to put some definition to what MY judgement would likely be, and if someone asked - that's what I'd suggest they use because it makes sense. Feel free to have your own judgement. However, you seem to be saying that if there's no play on the runner, then you would never ever consider this runner as having attempted to return to 2nd, and/or never ever consider this runner as having passed 3rd base (in reverse).

If that's true, then if the runner thought it was going to be caught (as in the OP), ran back to third and OVER third, without touching, and then almost to 2nd - whereupon he sees the ball NOT caught... by your interp, this runner can simply run over the pitcher's mound to go home. Surely that's not correct.