Running out of the basepath

[Dukat]

I want to see what everyone thinks about this very common situation that I have seen called both ways multiple times. This play happened at a game where my brother and I were calling last year and we still disagree on what the call should be. (NOTE: He made a call and I did not disagree with him on the field but we have discussed it together many times since when we see similar plays in our games) A runner coming home and is about 6-8 feet away from the catcher when she sees the catcher catch the ball. At that point the runner takes a huge turn around to go back to third but the catcher at that point is not close enough to attempt a tag but is running toward the runner. Do you call the runer out for being out of the basepath or not since she is not officially avoiding a tag yet?

[baldgriff]

She is returning to her previous base. Since there is no tag at the time I dont call anything.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by baldgriff

She is returning to her previous base. Since there is no tag at the time I dont call anything.

Yea, what he said.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The runner hasn't violated any rule, why would you call him/her out? Cannot avoid a tag that doesn't exist.

Add me to the "no call, play on" group.

[Dakota]

Agreed. A runner is allowed to choose any base path the runner wants to follow. The runner could run a loop around the pitcher's plate on the way back if she chose. The only time this is a violation is if it is to avoid a tag. No tag being attempted, no violation.

Which way were you on this play?

[Dukat]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The runner hasn't violated any rule, why would you call him/her out?

I wouldn't which is my point

But yet, time and time again, I see it called and justified by saying..."She ran 10 feet out of the baseline" And not only by rookies but by veteran umpires as well. And when I get there and make the no call everyone goes nuts wanting the call on the play. If this is not part of the "Myths" file then it should be.

[CecilOne]

My read is that the runner was avoiding a tag, but created a "base path" that went outside the norm. If she had no "base path" where she could be tagged, then anywhere she runs is in her "base path".

BUT, if we view a line from the point from where she was toward the plate/base as her intended "base path"; then was she or wasn't she leaving that intended "base path" to avoid a tag?

[Dakota]

There is a difference between trying to avoid a fielder with the ball who would like to make a tag if you were close enough and avoiding the tag itself.

Because a fielder is ready to make a tag, but the runner reverses well out of reach of the fielder, does not mean the runner is avoiding a tag (for the purposes of the base path rule).

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My read is that the runner was avoiding a tag, but created a "base path" that went outside the norm. If she had no "base path" where she could be tagged, then anywhere she runs is in her "base path".

BUT, if we view a line from the point from where she was toward the plate/base as her intended "base path"; then was she or wasn't she leaving that intended "base path" to avoid a tag?

say again?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My read is that the runner was avoiding a tag, but created a "base path" that went outside the norm. If she had no "base path" where she could be tagged, then anywhere she runs is in her "base path".

BUT, if we view a line from the point from where she was toward the plate/base as her intended "base path"; then was she or wasn't she leaving that intended "base path" to avoid a tag?

A. No, she was creating a new base path when she made the turn to go back to 3B. (This new base path is a natural running motion, and one that is no different than a fast runner making a wide turn around 1B on their way to 2B.)

B. As previous posters and the OP have stated, there is no tag to be avoided here. ASA 8.7.A.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by LMan

say again?

My read is that the runner was avoiding a tag, but created a "base path" that went outside the norm. If she had no "base path" where she could be tagged, then anywhere she runs is in her "base path".

BUT, if we view a line from the point from where she was toward the plate/base as her intended "base path"; then was she or wasn't she leaving that intended "base path" to avoid a tag?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

A. No, she was creating a new base path when she made the turn to go back to 3B. (This new base path is a natural running motion, and one that is no different than a fast runner making a wide turn around 1B on their way to 2B.)

B. As previous posters and the OP have stated, there is no tag to be avoided here. ASA 8.7.A.

A. I said "created a "base path" ... anywhere she runs is in her "base path""


B. Then why did she turn?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Okay.

Runner running fast and wide (near the grass on a small dirt infield) from 1B to 2B on a line drive that is hit to deep left field and unexpectedly caught (runner thought they were going to be heading to 3B at least, hence the wide approach to 2B from 1B). Seeing the catch and the throw in to the cutoff (F6) or even for example's sake, directly toward F5 on/near 2B, the runner slows to return back to 1B, and instead of skidding to a halt and backtracking in his/her original steps, continues to run and turn back toward 1B inside the diamond, in what turns out to be a fairly wide, eliptical path, perhaps even passing more near the pitcher's rubber than the direct line between 1B and 2B on his/her way back to 1B. You do not rule this runner out for running out of the basepath, despite the fact that they are seeking to avoid a possible put-out or "tag" back in the direction he/she is coming from, do you?

[Dakota]

Cecil,

If there was no tag attempted, there was no tag to avoid. Avoiding a potential tag is what runners do. All the time. Every time.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Cecil,

If there was no tag attempted, there was no tag to avoid. Avoiding a potential tag is what runners do. All the time. Every time.

That's what the early posts except yours seemed to be ignoring, the attempt versus the possibility.