out?

[gtfreek]

long time no chat...anyway...heres the sitch
asa slow pitch womens, bases loaded batter hits ground ball to short stop, all runners begin to advance due to the forces, as the short stop moves into the base line to tag the runner advancing from 2nd she stops and the moves backwards towards 2nd, my partner behind the plate calls here out and thats the end of the play so far as this sitch goes...coaches want to know why and the explanation given was cuz she was avoiding a tag, like running out of the base line...help me understand plz...I have not interpreted base line and force out sitches like this, except running to first

[Steve M]

Your partner was wrong. There are no restrictions on moving backward on anyone except the batter-runner between home & 1B.

[JEL]

Originally Posted by gtfreek

long time no chat...anyway...heres the sitch
asa slow pitch womens, bases loaded batter hits ground ball to short stop, all runners begin to advance due to the forces, as the short stop moves into the base line to tag the runner advancing from 2nd she stops and the moves backwards towards 2nd, my partner behind the plate calls here out and thats the end of the play so far as this sitch goes...coaches want to know why and the explanation given was cuz she was avoiding a tag, like running out of the base line...help me understand plz...I have not interpreted base line and force out sitches like this, except running to first

Could this have been the coach I ran into at nationals a while back?

R1 at 1B, ball hit to F4, about 10' from the 2B bag, F4 waits for R1 to run to her, but she just stops! F4 finally throws to F3 for the out at 1B, and R1 reaches 2B safely. D coach comes out and tells me "she (R1) is out, she can't do that" I asked "coach, what did she do?" "she stopped in the baseline, she can't stop or go backwards." All I said was "coach, how could she ever get in a rundown?" He looked a bit sheepish, and went back to his dugout.

Between innings he came and told me, "I knew that, but there were some parents saying she couldn't do that!"

Yeah, right.

[SRW]

I'm gonna take a different approach on this...

Correct, no restriction on moving backwards on anyone except the BR... ASA 8.2.H.

But a baserunner moving backwards, sideways, wherever - more than 3 feet from the base path to avoid a tag... I got me an out. ASA 8.7.A

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by SRW

I'm gonna take a different approach on this...

Correct, no restriction on moving backwards on anyone except the BR... ASA 8.2.H.

But a baserunner moving backwards, sideways, wherever - more than 3 feet from the base path to avoid a tag... I got me an out. ASA 8.7.A

Am I the only one who thinks this is an absolutely incorrect call?

Suppose you have R1 on 2B, and B2 hits the ball to the shortstop. You're saying that R1 can't take a few steps, then retreat to 2B if the shortstop goes after him with the ball?

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Am I the only one who thinks this is an absolutely incorrect call?

Suppose you have R1 on 2B, and B2 hits the ball to the shortstop. You're saying that R1 can't take a few steps, then retreat to 2B if the shortstop goes after him with the ball?

No, you are not the only one. I think that is why SRW started his post the way he did.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Am I the only one who thinks this is an absolutely incorrect call?

Suppose you have R1 on 2B, and B2 hits the ball to the shortstop. You're saying that R1 can't take a few steps, then retreat to 2B if the shortstop goes after him with the ball?

You have given a totally different scenario where R1 isn't forced to advance. The OP had bases loaded, where every runner is forced to advance.

Does that matter? Is the base path created when the runner is forced to advance? i.e.: in the OP, R2 on 2B set her path to 3B, then deviated (backwards) by more than 3 feet to avoid the tag.

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

[SRW]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

No, you are not the only one. I think that is why SRW started his post the way he did.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.