out?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Just sparking discussion here... think like a protest committee ... prove to me that calling an out in the OP is incorrect.

As the UIC on the protest committee , I would have to report to the others that there is no rule forbidding a runner from retreating to a base, forced or not, even if to avoid a tag.

I would like to know which rule YOU were exercising in ruling the runner out. (Key note: If you use the term "base line" in your reasoning, you probably just lost my ear, and possibly a game on the last day )

BTW, I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to prove you are correct to the protest committee.

[BretMan]

The "proof" is in the rule itself.

Read the rule that declares a runner out for deviating three feet from her basepath. It refers to running the bases in either forward or reverse order.

The basepath is a "two-way street". It is the straight line from the runner's position when the tag is attempted to either the forward or reverse base.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by BretMan

The "proof" is in the rule itself.

Read the rule that declares a runner out for deviating three feet from her basepath. It refers to running the bases in either forward or reverse order.

The basepath is a "two-way street". It is the straight line from the runner's position when the tag is attempted to either the forward or reverse base.

I did read it. And you're on my line of thinking... Keep following me down the rabbit hole, Alice...er, Bret

The base path is defined (Rule 1 - Base Path) as "a line directly between a base and the runner's position at the time a defensive player is attempting to tag that runner."

If the "line" is now between 'X' and 3B, and suddenly the runner deviates backwards 3 feet from 'X', is this not a violation of 8.7.A?

If the runner deviates 3 feet perpendicular to the base path, you have an out. Why not an out if the runner retreats 3 feet behind her starting position when the tag is attempted?

[BretMan]

Why not? Because the rule states that it applies to a runner running the bases in either "regular (forward) or reverse order".

As long as that "reverse order" path is a straight line back toward the previous base (within the allowable three feet deviation), the runner has not committed a violation.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Why not? Because the rule states that it applies to a runner running the bases in either "regular (forward) or reverse order".

As long as that "reverse order" path is a straight line back toward the previous base (within the allowable three feet deviation), the runner has not committed a violation.

That's the justification I was looking for.

Believe it or not, this exact same scenario was presented to me by another umpire earlier in the year. The other umpire, a new guy we'll call Timmy, wanted to call the out for retreating on a forced runner to avoid the tag. When I explained to Timmy that ya can't do that unless it was the BR, he then tried to tell me R2 was forced to 3B, and had to run forward or stop, but couldn't go backwards to avoid the tag. He had a pretty much convinced himself he was correct until I explained that by rule runners can go backwards. That's why we have rundowns, and rules for two runners being on one base.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by SRW

When I explained to Timmy that ya can't do that unless it was the BR,

Why cant the BR run backwards on the basepath??

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

Why cant the BR run backwards on the basepath??

Because there is a rule that specifically prohibits it.

Good enough reason for me!

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

As the UIC on the protest committee , I would have to report to the others that there is no rule forbidding a runner from retreating to a base, forced or not, even if to avoid a tag.

I don't disagree... but there is a rule forbidding the runner from deviating from the base path by more than 3 feet to avoid a tag.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would like to know which rule YOU were exercising in ruling the runner out. (Key note: If you use the term "base line" in your reasoning, you probably just lost my ear, and possibly a game on the last day )

I gave you the rule - 8.7.A. And note that I never used "base line."

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to prove you are correct to the protest committee.

Not true. I ruled an out in this hypothetical scenario. You're the coach trying to prove me wrong.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

I don't disagree... but there is a rule forbidding the runner from deviating from the base path by more than 3 feet to avoid a tag.

True, but irrelevant to the play at hand as such an occurence was not stated in the OP, thus cannot be considered

I gave you the rule - 8.7.A. And note that I never used "base line."

Cannot stand on that rule since, as previously noted, it does not apply.

Not true. I ruled an out in this hypothetical scenario. You're the coach trying to prove me wrong.

Not so fast. You said think like the protest committee. I don't have to prove anything and to be honest, neither does the coach. Both parties offer their view of the play, the umpire states what they called and why. From there, the protest committee either upholds the protest of the misapplication of the rule or denies it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

IMO, this is a HTBT play, and the key issue is when is the runner avoiding a tag? Stopping, even retreating, when the fielder ahead has the ball is not avoiding a tag; you cannot be avoiding a hypothetical tag until one is attempted. AHA!! The key, I think, is that a tag must be attempted; once that happens, the base path is established, and the 3' variation avoiding the tag in any direction, including a reversal when forced, can be enforced.

Prior to the attempt, being forced doesn't require a runner to run into a future tag. After all, the play made may remove that force.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

True, but irrelevant to the play at hand as such an occurence was not stated in the OP, thus cannot be considered

Per my above responses, Timmy's justification to use this rule was that her base path was between her position, "X", and 3B... and Timmy wanted to say that she was now 3 feet from the "X-3B" base path... thus had violated the rule. When I explained that by moving backwards towards 2B, she had created a second and completely new base path, that's when it finally made sense to Mr. Timmy.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not so fast. You said think like the protest committee. I don't have to prove anything and to be honest, neither does the coach. Both parties offer their view of the play, the umpire states what they called and why. From there, the protest committee either upholds the protest of the misapplication of the rule or denies it.

I know. I said the coach thing to get you riled up...