Bucs vs Nats...attempted advance toward 2nd?
 

Pirates manager Clint Hurdle ejected for fourth time this season | pirates.com: News

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;

What do you guys think about this call?...fast forward to 1:15 in video to get a good look.

Looks like he started a "round-off" several steps before he got to the bag, then changed his mind & ran straight through.

Personally, I wouldn't want to pick that booger.

I believe the call is stretching the interpretation of the players intent, AFTER overrunning first base. Which is what the rule addresses. Not before.

Great call if you're looking for an EJ.

Bad call. This was no attempt. And it only lead fuel to the fire of those idiots that continue to yell, "Tag him, you can't turn left!!!"

+1

He went straight through from that round-off angle. That "round-off" before he got to 1B probably made it look more like a move to 2B. It sure wasn't the usual overrun of 1B to beat out a grounder. It was something...not much of anything, but something. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have been bamboozled into an OOO out. I dunno, but I wouldn't blame my partner if he got an out there either.

No Left Turn
 

But Alvarez turned to his right to return to 1st base.

He went marginally left after passing first before turning to return. And for some flabbergasting reason was called out for it.

This was a bull $hit call and if any amateur umpire out there makes a call like this, he is a bull $hit umpire! There was no attempt to go to 2nd base and all this call does is support idiots who say turning left is an attempt.

It was a correct call. The B/R neither overran nor overslid the base, both of which imply the runner is attempting to reach 1st base as his primary goal. Instead he was gauging whether he could try to advance to second.

Even under-educated fans who want an out called because a B/R "turned left" after overrunning 1st will notice that in this case the runner wasn't even remotely trying to beat the ball to the bag.

And, what do you suppose caused the defense to tag him?

...but he did overrun the base by 15 feet?

He gauged whether he could advance to second 2/3 of the way to the base, did that little turn, saw F6 was going to have it and he'd be hosed if he actually rounded, then shut it down and coasted through the bag.

Dave ,

1. The runner clearly overran the base and "returns immediately".
2. What rule is he violating by "gauging whether he could try to advance to second"?
3. The rule has nothing to do with the action of the runner before he get to the bag.
4. Was there a attempt or feint by the runner to advance to second , once he overran the bag?

Now I will admit "on video replay" there seemed to be some hesitant move on the runners part when he "arrived" at the base. Which probably contributed to the out call however that was marginal at best.

Where we seem to differ here is the meaning of "overrun or overslide". IMO, in the context of this rule, these are not synonyms for "went past". Instead, the runner needs to be trying to reach 1st base as his primary goal, i.e. trying to beat a real or imagined throw. Note that Evans interprets this rule as not applying to a runner who was awarded a base on balls, because the B/R has (usually) no reason to go past first base. He can decelerate before he reaches the bag. FED (8-2-7) explicitly excludes a base on balls. The point of 7.08(j) is to allow the runner to reach 1st base as quickly as he can.

In the OP, the runner wasn't trying to beat a throw, and he did move toward 2nd base. Nor was the move toward 2nd part of the return to 1st.

Regarding your point 2, of course the runner didn't violate any rule; he simply was tagged while off the base and the provisions of 7.08(j) weren't met.

Dave , if you were talking about building a bridge or sending a man to the moon, I would enter this discussion with great interest however, we are discussing the game of Baseball. (MLB).

You have entered into a intellectual level of discussion and interpretation that far exceeds the participants, officials, managers, rule makers, owners and without a doubt, announcers of this game.

There is just no way that same rule book could still exist in the condition it is, with that level of thinking, interpretation and continuous publication, given the infrequent edification that has taken place over the years.

I respect your opinion but, I have to put into the context of the game we are discussing and that's where I'm having a problem.