Running outside the base path

[WestMichBlue]

Ground ball is bobbled by F6, R1 advancing from 2B to 3B. R1 goes outside the 3' allowance to avoid a tag, but is tagged anyway by the glove. But - the ball is in F6's other hand.

OK, so we don't have a tag out. But will you call an out for running outside the base path to avoid what is not a legal tag?

WMB

[tzme415]

Had the runner stayed in the path, would the fielder been able to make the tag legally? I don't know if this has any bearing on the call, just curious. I would think that unless the runner was going outside the base line to avoid being called for interference, the runner is out.

[Andy]

Sure...the out happens when the runner sees that F6 has the ball and is intending to tag her. If she goes outside of the 3' allowance, she is out.

I see it the same as if the runner going outside her 3' allowance causes the fielder to miss the tag altogether.

The runner is still out.

[mcrowder]

WMB - she is avoiding a legal tag. She may be avoiding an UNSUCCESSFUL tag, but there's nothing illegal here. Going more than 3 feet outside the baseline to avoid a tag (good, bad, easy or hard) is an out.

[tzme415]

The only allowance to going out side the 3' lane is if the runner must avoid a fielder to keep from committing interference, correct? The only part that would give me any hesitation to commit to the out based on the post is that it is unclear if R1 was outside the line just to avoid the tag or had gone that way to avoid the interference. Of course this interference rule has always confused me somewhat.

[mcrowder]

That's a good point, and this is a very HTBT play. If the runner was slanting away from the fielder to avoid interfering with them making a play BEFORE the fielder had the ball and was starting to try for a tag, I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially absent some other dodging type move to avoid a tag.

However, if the runner changed direction significantly as the possibility of a tag presented itself, you definitely have a runner avoiding a tag (even if the tag was being made poorly or even inadequately).

That's why they pay us those medium sized sacks of pennies for each game.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder
That's a good point, and this is a very HTBT play. If the runner was slanting away from the fielder to avoid interfering with them making a play BEFORE the fielder had the ball and was starting to try for a tag, I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially absent some other dodging type move to avoid a tag.

Speaking ASA

Cannot happen. For the purpose of this rule, the runner's basepath is not defined until a defensive player has the ball and is attempting to tag that runner out.

If the defender is attempting to field a batted ball, the basepath cannot be established until they actually possess the ball and make the attempt. Up to this point, the runner may alter their route as they choose without penalty.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Ground ball is bobbled by F6, R1 advancing from 2B to 3B. R1 goes outside the 3' allowance to avoid a tag, but is tagged anyway by the glove. But - the ball is in F6's other hand.

OK, so we don't have a tag out. But will you call an out for running outside the base path to avoid what is not a legal tag?

WMB

I would say "out" by your statement R1 goes outside 3' allowance
to avoid a tag, so fielder has the ball, runners bathpath is established.

[mcrowder]

Mike - I thought that was what I was saying. Either you misunderstood me, or I typed my point very poorly. Probably the latter, I suppose.

[tzme415]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Mike - I thought that was what I was saying. Either you misunderstood me, or I typed my point very poorly. Probably the latter, I suppose.

Me too. If R1 had taken an angle outside what would 'normally' be considered the 3' lane to avoid interference, the base path established by the time that F6 had actually gained control of the ball may be far enough away that she could have even made a dodging move and still been legal. After all F6 did bobble the ball, which may have given R1 a lane even further from what would be considered 'normal'. This really is a judgement call based on the path established when F6 gained control of the ball.

[azbigdawg]

the "base path" is not a straight line between bases, and if you are basing your calls on that, it aint good. I had situation last week where a runner swung wide to avoid interfereing with the shortstop fielding the ball. The shortstop had a choice of plays, tried to make a tag on the runner (who was headed towards third at this time), and missed. The coach of the defensive team wanted her out for bein gout of the basepath, but I would have been wrong to call it. remember we WANT runners to avoid the interference, so why punish them for doing what we want them to do?

[tzme415]

Darrell - Good point, I think that is why we don't establish the base path in ASA until the fielder has the ball. As has been pointed out earlier, once the fielder has the ball then the runner must stay within the base path. That is why this sitch is hard to call without seeing when the fielder had control of the ball and the runner's position at that time.

[booker227]

Did the defensive player have possession of the ball at the time of the runners' decision to step outside of the line? Was the line established or was it a loose ball situation?
I believe that if the ball was loose, then the runner has the right to avoid a possible collision. IF the ball was possessed buy the fielder then, in my mind, the runner tried to escape teh tag by running outside the line. A judgement call....surely..have fun with that one.......

[MA Softball Ump]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Originally posted by mcrowder

Speaking ASA ....

FED is not any different, is it?

[mcrowder]

How did I get quoted with a "Speaking ASA"? T'wasn't me, I say!