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.

Still need HELP!!!
 

Could someone please supply me with the infomation I asked for in the post above(up 1)? Thanks for all the help.

Re: Still need HELP!!!
 

From NFHS 2000 website rulings at http://www.nfhs.org :
<ul>SITUATION 19: With R1 on third base, R2 takes a lead off of first base and positions himself at the grass towards right center field. The coach of the defensive team complains to the base umpire that R2’s position is illegal. RULING: R2’s lead-off position is legal. (8-2) </ul>

Freix

it's really a fun play to watch
 

This play is sold over the web I think it's called skunk in the out field, trick play's or the like by coach Nixon, the
whole concept is to score run's and this play is designed to tax the def. as much as possible, a good umpire has to be aware of what the runner is doing for it's very easy to have him be out of his base path which he establish's by his own actions, but if it is run properly a run should score and a out on a runner.

So like Steve hinted to it's a sacrifice with out a pitch, enjoy it when it happen's, you might not like they way it's done But it's a coach's job to use all the mean's he can to win, and if the other coach has not come up against this play, well...., life is full of lesson's isn't it.


mac

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
AND????? BIG Deal!!! Smart and well coached plyers will figure it out, haven't seen this action, but, seems legit, rather sneeky. For the stupid other team.

Thanks
 

Thanks Bfair,
I didn't know about that website.
I think if I was the opposing team I would just have my pitcher step back off the rubber and bluff the runner on 3rd back and then throw to 1st. If that runner then took another step towards right field Blue would have to call him out.
Thanks again,

<b>If that runner then took another step towards right field Blue would have to call him out.</b>

You are making two assumptions. First he would have to at least facing first not second. Second, that one step would have to move him more than three feet out of his basepath.

Why are you trying so hard to find a way to call the out? Let the play develop and follow the rules.

Skunk in the Outfield!
 

Wellll,
 

It is not in the case book, it was in one of the Quarterly newsletters or a notice sent to all Federation certified groups (in both cases this makes it an 'official' ruling).

The newsletter (available at their website) is one of the better ways to keep abreast of current FED interpretations.

Tee

Runner on 1st walking toward foul pole. Which side of line is he on? Foul side, you could call abandonment on the runner.

Why? Citations please.

Rich

Rich
 

There are no citations available to back this ruling.

FED also stands behind that a "lead off" can be in foul ground (i.e. it happens all the time at third base) so there would be no backing for abandonment.

Tee

Lloyd,
ASHAA's position on this play is that you have an out when the runner reaches the grass, Travesty of the game. This was discussed during the South Central District Camp in February.

I don't know which association you belong to, you can have your prez contact Perry Butler, the state rules interpreter to clarify this.

Will

Sounds good, I'll do that.
By the way Decatur and it's Loyd with 1 L. Everyone else is wrong.

We are talking a lead at first not third. Abadonment is the cessation of effort to advance on the bases. A runner walking away from the next base could be considered to have abandoned his effort.
I.E. Runner at 1st takes a "lead" from 1st but not towards 2nd, out to the outfield with no steps toward 2nd.
The "skunk in the outfield" play calls for the runner to take a deep lead, into the outfield, from 1st but towards 2nd. Unusual but legal. A runner walking towards the foul pole is not taking any steps toward the next base, therefore he has abandoned his effort.
Leads at third go into foul territory but towards home, effort to advance.

Will & Wool
 

Will:

So Alabama has ruled contrary to FED -- is that what you are saying?

If that is true that means that Mr. Brewer is supporting a ruling that is NOT FED sanctioned and therefore he is not allowed to be on the National Rules Committee.

We have been told over-and-over that any state that does not follow FED rules cannot be involved in the development of the rule book.

Does Mr. Brewer KNOW what ruling is being used in HIS state?

Wool: just give me a FED citation that backs your description of a "legal lead" . . . after 34 years I have yet to find that citation, but even this old dog can learn new things.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 11th, 2003 at 02:35 PM]

Tim -
I don't thnk I used the term "legal lead". The original post cited the runner as walking towards the foul pole. This implies that the runners back is turned to the infield and he is not concerned with what is happening behind him. This could constitute abandonment. He is not attempting to get a "lead" and he is not returning to a base. If he is on the foul side of the line he is clearly walking away from 2nd. If he is on the fair side he could be getting a lead. It depends on the angle he is taking in his walk. If he continues towards the foul pole though, there is again, no attempt to advance.
If he is backing out of the infield, this would change things. He is now concerned with what is happening so I would be more lenient with where he goes. If he continues to back away from the infield and into foul territory, I could then call abandonment.
The key to me in this situation is, "Which way is he moving?", somewhat towards 2nd or away. If away then I could call abandonment.
This is one of those "had to be there's".

Tee,
Stuff it up your $$$ :D You know what I think? well I'm not going to say it on an open forum.

Does FED require us to wear the ASHAA approved clothing? Does ASHAA follow FED mechanics?

So Tee, do what you will in the great NW and we'll do it our way down here. When you coming down for pig,s feet and PBR????

Will

Oh My!
 

I'm thinking that the most meaningful comment of this discussion is the following:

This really cracked me up.


To address the situation. A large percentage of the teams I see are so uncertain of their abilities that they let R1 advance to 2nd without a throw. Those that are more confident, would NOT be distracted by this tactic enough to allow R3 to score.

I think it is kind of funny .... especially that part about the right fielder chasing the runner around trying to tag him. It's too much man.... I can't handle it.

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies...ackeye/lol.gif

Will,
 

Can I wear my plate coat . . . ?

I really want to come and meet you, BD and Jordan.

Soon I hope!!!!

Tee