I got nothing on this play. 3 feet is a LOT farther than most people think it is.

I can't tell a thing from the video angle. I think it looks worse because he goes past the plate and has to come back so much to the plate to score, but that's not a out-of-basepath issue.

Another thing to consider is this is not a good throw from F9. It pulls the catcher up the line almost to the cut out and into the baserunners path. I would not award bad defense on a marginal out of the basepath call.

At our clinics, when we place a yardstick on the field nearly all the umpires are surprised at how LITTLE it takes to cover that distance. From a stopped position, it's only one step for adult players. Barely half a stride on the run.

From Publius - "Usually the first "go-around" step (if the runner is going to the back side of the plate) is with the right leg, and covers three feet. That's what this runner did. The second step is a recovery step. If that step crosses the go-around step, I have a violation. That runner's did not, so nothing--yet.

The third step should take the runner back toward his original path. This runner's third step appeared from that angle to be farther from his original path than the go-around step. I'd say he's out of his baseline."

My first thought here is "You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out, you put your right foot in and you shake it all about." :D

JJ

From the player attempting the tag. Roughly 3 feet. An arm's length. A guideline for calling a player out for running out of the baseline to avoid a tag. Guideline.

JJ

No, the position of the defender has nothing to do from where the three feet gets measured.

So if the defender is standing in a spot with the ball in his hand, and the runner goes more than 3 feet (arm's length) away from the defender to avoid a tag, even though that means he's running more than 3 feet (arm's length) out of his direct line to the base he's running to, you're not going to call him out for running out of the baseline? You say potato...

JJ

I don't find the video conclusive, since I can't see where he starts. The rule prohibits diverging more than 3 feet in order to avoid a tag: but you can't conclude from the fact that he avoided the tag that he diverged in order to do so.

Also, the tag missed by a lot: again, the runner diverged, and maybe more than 3 feet, but if the tag would have missed anyway, he didn't diverge in order to avoid the tag.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how the PU seems to have his lower extremities encased in concrete. He moves a little for F/F, but that's it. Get to 3BLX, for pete's sake, and put yourself where you can rule on this.

It's half a stride if for some reason you're suddenly striding perpendicular to your initial basepath... but people don't run that way. It's VERY uncommon for a runner to divert that much when running full speed, even after two strides - and when they do, it's obvious. Far more obvious than this runner.

Either I don't understand your question, or you don't understand the rule. As stated, your question is unanswerable - you have not provided the relevant information to make the call.

Where the defender starts is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The "arms length" is only appropriate if the defender happens to be perfectly directly between the runner and the base at the time he begins to make the tag. On your typical play, this is very very rarely the case (usually, especially at the plate, the defender begins the tag from significantly inside (closer to the interior of the diamond) of the line between the runner and the plate.

This is irrelevant.

This is relevant.

The starting point of the runner is never the same as the starting point of the fielder. There are three relevant points on the field to determine the basepath--where the runner is at the beginning of the attempt, and the bases on either end.

If a runner at full speed has a mere six-foot stride--certainly the minimum length for any adult-size player--and he diverts from his direct line at anything more than a 35-degree angle--VERY common--he's already more than three feet out of his baseline after one step. Pythagoras told me so.

That's fly-specking it, which nobody wants to do. What our clinic drills demonstrated, though, was that on plays at the plate runners avoiding a tag moved off their line by at least <I>four</i> feet--the result of a six-foot stride and a 45-degree angle--more than half the time.

The lesson wasn't to seize the dirty end of the stick. It was just to show that this play is a lot like batter interference and fielder obstruction were ten years ago. Players were committing both without penalty all the time, but education and emphasis have greatly reduced that.

While far from certain, when I look at where the runner was relative to that patch where the turf is missing just outside the dirt circle at the plate when the tag was first attempted, and where he ended up relative to that patch after one step, it looks to me like he violated the three-feet limit. Even if so, I agree it's close enough to justify a pass on the out call.

Fair enough. All I would add is that if they are diverting 45 degrees at full speed, they fall into the "it's obvious" part of my previous email. MOST of the "He ran out of the baseline!" cries from coaches (and fans) come from deviations far less than 45 (or even 35) degrees.

Sorry, but I don't think the success of the tag has anything to do with this. Here's the wording in the rule:

I don't see any criterion in there that requires the tag to be successful minus the deviation.

If that were the case, a runner could run all over the field while a fielder with the ball chases him, and until the fielder gets close enough to actually tag him, that's when you start the three-feet determination.

For me, once the fielder has the ball and turns toward the runner, that's when you look for the violation.