"Last time by" confusion
 

I was BU so this was described to me by my partner during our post game. It didn't all play out, but lets play along.

R2, 1 out. Fly ball. R2, thinking there are 2 outs, touches 3rd and starts towards home. About 10-15 feet on his way to home (about at the cutout) he realizes his gaffe and takes a few steps (lets call it 2) directly back towards second base across the cutout. The ball is then dropped, and the runner directly advances home safely.

What do you have on appeal?

I've spoken with a few different guys and while we all agree that at some point you have an out in here for failure to touch 3rd on the last time by, we can't really pinpoint at what point he is required to retouch 3rd. By rule, if he "passes" 3rd on his retreat to 2nd, he has to retouch it again. But what does "passes" mean when he never even goes to retouch it? Is there any sort of guideline to be used, or is this just a play you gotta bear down and umpire?

I would say if he is 10-15 feet down the line and then cuts back you can't really tell if he was going back to 2nd or 3rd. I would say as long as he was some what in the baseline (still in the cutout), cut back, and proceeded to home it would be fine.

I am a Rat not an Umpire so just my opinion.

Last time by refers to a runner touching a base the last time by if he missed the base previously. He can't be out on appeal because he touched the base the last time by essentially correcting his error. In the OP, the runner does not have to be in any baseline unless he is being played on. He can run wherever he wants. It would be a gross mistake to call him out for this.

Great (imo) question. At first, I was going to say it's as soon as he's "committed" (in your mind) to second (and not to third in the interim). But, then what if the play happened at the home plate cut out and he took three (or 4 or 5) hard steps toward second? Would I really expect him to run back to third to be legal?

So, I think it does come down to (a) hoping it doesn't happen to you and (b) sometime you just have to umpire.

It would be your opinion anyway. But my point is that you have a typo in your sig. :)

I think the latter: if you judge that he has retreated back between 3B and 2B, then he is obligated to touch 3B again. If not, then he's good.

There are so many ways that a runner might move, it's challenging to lay out guidelines. I would look at how many steps he took and where he was on the field (say, relative to the line between 3B and 1B) to help with this call.

In the sitch you describe, taking 2 steps IMO does not commit him to returning to 2B; he might just be observing the play. But it's a judgment call all the way, and I would not second guess the umpire on the field.

I might be misunderstanding the question here but, unless the ball becomes immeadiately dead there is not going to be a call/appeal until playing action has stopped, for a "last time by" infraction. By that time the runners intent would have been defined. "Attempt does not come into play here.

How can the runner be called out on appeal when the ball was dropped?

For missing the base on the last time by. It is a missed base appeal, not a retouch appeal, so catch/no catch does not enter the picture.

I agree with mbyron. A few steps toward 2B doesn't constitute "missing" 3B. If he gets close to 2B, you have a much better case.

Even then, we have the legal "skunk in the outfield" play and other examples of how a runner can be far away from the basepaths and not be "missing" anything. If you take baserunning weirdness to a ridiculous extreme, you enter a theoretical area in which there's virtually no "case law." What if a batter lines a shot that shoots past the outfielders and rolls 600 feet on an open field. He sees that the outfielders aren't even chasing the ball, so he runs all over the infield and outfield as he touches the bases in order and the defense stands still watching him and plotting their revenge? Did the BR "miss" a base in all that nonsense?

Batter stretches a single into a double but after he slides into 2B thinks he's been put out. Meanwhile, the throw to 2B has kicked off into a remote corner of foul territory. The runner trots toward his dugout, crosses the 1B line, and then sprints directly back to 2B (or even to 3B) at the entreaties of his teammates. Did he "miss" 1B in the process? I'd say no.

I'm going to add: IMO, (and don't take this literally) the purpose of the "touch every base" rule (and, thus, the LTB), is to make sure the runner runs 360' to score, and doesn't gain an advantage along the way. It's not to give the defense an easy out for a mis-step or two along the way.

So, in the OP, if R2 got an advantage by what he did, then call the out. Otherwise, call it an ambling approach to the plate.

And, yes, that gets back to the last sentence in the OP -- "just a play you gotta bear down and umpire"

That's better than what I said. It's not so much where he was or what he was trying to do: if he gained an advantage from missing a base the last time by, then he's out on proper appeal.

I believe I'd mentally draw a line between 3rd and 1st base. If this rambling runner crossed that line such that he's closer to 2nd than home ... then in my mind he's "passed" 3rd base and on his way to 2nd. A couple of steps as in the OP? I've got nothing.

Are you saying the ball was dropped, no catch? If so I don't see the point of question, there is no need to return and R2 running in in a little circle near home plate is irrelevant. You say he realized his gaffe, what gaffe if there was no catch? If there was a catch then last time by is irrelevant because he would have need go back to 2b to touch. Confusing, certainly.

That was my point. He didn't miss the base on the last time by and as Ozzy has already implied, could have run circles around the mound then head for second, get two steps away turn touch third and go back to second. I know it is far fetched but besides reality, there no rule against it. Until he retouches second, there is no LTB infraction to consider. Not theoritically speaking of course.

Ah, interesting interp. I don't agree, but it's interesting!

Different case: R1 stealing on the pitch, batter hits the ball high and deep to left-center. R1 touches 2B and sees F7 settle under the ball. He retreats past 2B, missing it, and heads to "halfway" between 1B and 2B. F7 then drops the ball. R1 now proceeds past 2B, missing the base again, and rolls into 3B. The defense appeals the missed base.

You're ruling "safe" on the appeal, because he just took a circuitous route to 3B?

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.

Mike,

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 judgment.

Never said anything was wrong with your answer, just that it was not in the book. I am also just trying to define “passing.”

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).

No, what I am saying is, that unless a runner is being played upon, there is no base path established (you know that), and the runner somewhat unlimited to where they can run. Considering that, his “attempt” to get to second is not defined until he actually touches it. Only at that time can the defense appeal that the runner missed 3rd base on his return.

According to BRD 2011, Section 4, page 14&15, “AO 1-4: J/R: An advance or return “by” a base does not include a complete bypass of such base (runner made no attempt to touch the base) [outside a body’s length (44)] in an attempt to reach a subsequent [or previous] base safely. (71:B1)

Last Time By, is a rule that enables the runner to correct a missed base infraction and supports the rule that the bases must be run in order while advancing or returning. However, that miss seems to be defined as “outside a body’s length”, for LTB to be applicable. After that an appeal is allowed for not running the bases in order. This is supported by the following:

2011 NFHS Rule Interpretations
SITUATION 15: R1 misses second base as he advances to third, but touches it as he safely returns to first base. The defense appeals his missing second as he advanced. RULING: The appeal is denied. The last time R1 went by second base, he properly touched the base and thus corrected the previous baserunning error. (8-2-6l)
SITUATION 16: As R1 attempts to score from second base, he misses third base by cutting well inside the infield. With the fly ball being caught, Brown attempts to return, touching third as he goes back to second base. RULING: Brown will be declared out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base in a manner to gain an unfair advantage is still vulnerable to appeal. (8-2-6l)
SITUATION 17: R1 is moving on the pitch as the batter hits a fly ball to left center field. R1 touches second base and heads for third when the ball is caught. R1 stops and returns to first base, missing second base. The ball is thrown into the dugout and R1 is awarded third. He touched first, second and third base on the award. The defense appeals his miss of second base as he attempted to return to first. RULING: R1’s actions are legal and the defensive appeal will be denied. R1 satisfied his baserunning obligations when he touched second on his last time by the base. (8-2-6l)
SITUATION 18: R1 leaves first base too soon on a caught fly ball. He touches second and nears third when his coach instructs him to return. R1 does so by running directly across the diamond toward first base. The ball gets by the first baseman, and R1 retouches first and makes it safely to second base. RULING: R1 would be declared out upon proper appeal by the defense as the principle of “Last Time By” would not apply. (8-2-6l)

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.

I agree it is not, see above.

Some people just don't get it.