Less than 2 outs, R1 on third, R2 on first. R2 takes a walking lead towards the right field foul pole and keeps walking to try and draw a throw allowing R1 to try to score a run.
I believe this to be a travesty of the game. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree how would you make the call. This was discussed during our meeting last night because some teams did this during American Legion this past summer and said they will do it in High School this year. I don’t know how it was called during the summer.

TAKE the pledge!
 

Can we all agree to NEVER EVER use Fed runner nomenclature within this forum... PULEEEEZEEE???

ON earth. R3 is a (R)unner who is on (3)rd base. Even I can understand that...

-
Random Ruminent Vent of the Day

The play is legal. The FED issued a specific interpretation on this play last year.

Either R3 on 3B, R2 on 2B, etc., or Abel, Baker, Charles, Daniels, and so on. To me, the names are easier.

Go bam ,

Why do you see it as a Travesy of the game?

So, is it also a travesty of the game for a player to merely give himself up with the bat for the benefit of a teammate? Some call that a sacrifice.

While your play is typically ineffective with older players who have stronger, more accurate throws, it's still the coach's choice to try it and the defense's choice to play on him. Frankly, with R1 considerably out in right field it seems to make for an easier force out at 2B if they elect not to play on him.........

I guess it's all perception...........


Freix

Just a FED question reguarding this situation. I'm looking at 6:2:4b which states:

"[balk if] failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base (occupied or unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or drive back a runner; or throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner."

In the situation talked about earlier where R1 leads off towards the RF foul pole, can the pitcher attempt a pickoff to F9?

R1 first runner to reach base
R2 second runner to reach base
R3 .....

B1 is first batter
B2 is second batter
B3 .....

U1 isn't U3 when he moves to position C is he? No he remains U1. So what is the problem with R1 being on second?

Sheesh, these Little League umpires! (grinning)

R1 first runner to reach base
R2 second runner to reach base
R3 .....

B1 is first batter
B2 is second batter
B3 .....

U1 isn't U3 when he moves to position C is he? No he remains U1. So what is the problem with R1 being on second?

Sheesh, these Little League umpires! (grinning)

""So what is the problem with R1 being on second?"

It's easier to visualize where the runners are if R1 is on 1B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 3B, without remembering who reachedbase when.

Bob

AS long as, in the umpire's juudgment, the fielder is close enough to make a play.

See 6.3.4J

Fed Rule 8-4-2n
I know they are not running bases in reverse order, but they are running bases to confuse their opponents. IMO



[Edited by gobama84 on Feb 28th, 2003 at 09:15 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gobama84

Quote:

I know they are not running bases in reverse order, but they are running bases to confuse their opponents. IMO

Frankly, I think it to be a mere tactic of the game to force the defense to either allow the further advance of R1 or play on him, the latter effectively making a more difficult play on R3 advancing to home. Evidently the Fed, who addressed this situation in caseplay, feels the same.

While I'm not an advocate of the play, there are many things I like and don't like where others disagree. When specifically ruled against my understanding, I learn to accept it and move on if there's nothing I can do about it until it's changed.

Just remember on this play that <u>when R1 is being played upon</u> his basepath is established directly to each base. I've seen situations where such a runner goes to the outfield cutout, is played upon, advances inward directly toward 2B, but when the throw is made to 2B he then retraces his footsteps back to where he was at the cutout. That is illegal. His basepath in that situation is directly to 1B, and not retracing his footsteps to the outfield. Although the fielder was still well away from the runner, R1 was declared out for leaving the basepath. The intent of the basepath rule is to prevent the fielder from having to chase the runner who is not advancing to a base. The rule served its purpose after the runner was played upon.


Freix

There are many things done in the game to confuse the opponent.

Quick Bunt.
Curve Ball
Fake tag (at the pro level)
fake steal
Fake throw to a bag.
Hidden Ball (when executed properly)

None of which are a travesty of the game. I know this will come down to your definition of "Travesty" however as already mentinoed in other posts, this is not included under that definition.

Have a nice day.

Fed Case Book
 

I know that bob jenkins and Bfair both mentioned that Fed had given an interpretation. Could someone point me to that information in the Case Book.

Thanks for all the information found on this board.