Force runner question - ASA
 

Got a question for all you umpiring pros.

Here is the situation. Runners at 1B and 2B. No outs. Lazy fly ball hit to short center field. Balls drops. Runners had not advanced expecting it to be caught. Runner from 2B starts running to 3B. Throw comes in to 3B short of the bag. Third baseman catches the ball and attempts to tag the runner from 2B. The runner stops and dodges backward to avoid the tag.

Umpire calls the runner out for retreating back toward 2B when he was a force out runner to 3B.

Is this the right call? The only rule I have been able to find in the ASA rulebook concerning retreating toward a previous base being an out is a batter-runner retreating toward home plate to avoid a tag.

Can you guys help me out here? I would like to be able to argue this if it is wrong and it happens again.

You're asking umpires... to help you... pick an argument with an umpire? Call me crazy here, but that doesn't sound inherently wrong to you? Would you go up to a cop and ask him how to make another cop look like a fool in court?

Hah, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of the rules. Asking an umpire seems to be the best way to go about this. It's a pretty rare thing and it will most likely end up as useless trivia since in my 20+ years of playing the game this is the first time I have experienced the rule called this way.

But to answer your question, yes I would ask a cop to help me understand a law if I felt like a different cop had applied it incorrectly. I would think everyone would want to do their job correctly, even if past mistakes have to be illuminated in order to do it right in the future.

Well, bear in mind that I don't have the umpire present to find out if that's what he actually ruled, or even meant to say when explaining the rule or making the call. We're human, and sometimes, we misspeak when we explain rules.

No, there's no rule against a runner retreating back to the base from the base they started from. There IS a rule against the batter-runner retreating back towards HP in order to avoid or delay the tag (as you already found).

Did the runner side-step at all? As in, did they do any kind of "olé" action to avoid the tag?

I don't remember this forum ever being shy about bashing an umpire who botches a rule! :rolleyes:

And this one was botched. There is no rule preventing a runner from retreating back toward the previous base on this play.

Perhaps, but you'll have to excuse my apprehension in answering this question. We umpires are an wary bunch when it comes to outsiders, and we never know what kind of sh1t storm we're getting ourselves into when faced with a "hey, blue... lemme ask you this..." We get it all the time, and answering this kind of question results in one of three things:

1 - A sh1t-storm for a past, current or present partner,
2 - An argument between me and yet another player or coach (and I wasn't even there to make the call!)
3 - Some feeling of enlightenment by the player/coach.

Usually, it's one of the first two, and it's rarely the latter.

It's one thing to bash an umpire who is active on the forum, as s/he is there to explain what they saw and ruled. In this case, I'm a little hesitant to believe that this is exactly how it happened. It is entirely possible that this is what the team saw, but NOT what the umpire saw.

There was a second umpire waiting for another game to start witting right behind home plate in the stands watching when it happened. I walked over and asked him about it.

Little bit more detail. When the 3B player applied the tag, he had the ball in his throwing hand and tagged the runner with an empty glove. The runner was called out.

I wanted to ask the ump about that because a few weeks ago I applied a tag on a runner with an empty glove and was told I had to have the ball in glove to get the out.

I asked the ump why the runner in this situation was called out. He said the runner stepped back toward 2B when he was forced to go to 3B and that was why the out was called. The ump that made the call was between batters standing at the fence listening to this explanation and seemed to agree. He certainly didn't dispute the explanation if it was not the reason he made the call.

The runner did not move outside the basepath. just back toward second. He was really trying to get the third baseman holding the ball long enough to not turn the double play, knowing there was no way he was making it to 3B safely.

You have my word NCASA (for whatever its worth on the net) that I am not here to start a fire for any umpire. I just really want to understand this call. I have no reason to embellish the story as that would totally defeat the purpose of my inquiry in the first place, which is to simply educate myself. The out didn't change the outcome of the game, heck, it didn't even change the outcome of the inning. HAH!

Tagging a runner with an empty hand or an empty glove does not get an out. That's correct.

What I'm about to say is a REAL stretch, so don't flame me for going this route. It is REMOTELY possible that the umpire felt that the runner had interfered with the defense's ability to make a play on him or on another runner. That's not the call that I would make, but it's a remote shot. Did the umpire call "TIME!" or "Dead ball!" when the tag with the empty glove was made? Did the runner reach for the glove or hand at all?

Of course he wouldn't dispute it. For starters, he doesn't want to get dragged into it, nor does he want to throw his fellow umpire under the bus. It's the same reason I have for not really wanting to go down this road.

Provided that is everything that happened, there is nothing wrong with that.

Bear in mind that I am not taking issue with you, or accusing you of lying or even misleading us (despite the fact that many other coaches and players have done that on this board in the past). It's a simple matter of the umpire involved not being present on this board to explain exactly what happened, coupled with the fact that what an umpire looks for on a play is completely and 110% different from what a player, fan or coach looks for. Players watch "bodies" on a play. They see that the throw beat the runner, or that the runner was closer to the base than the fielder. Umpires are looking at things that are much more subtle: positioning of the feet, how securely a ball is held in a glove or hand, where the hands are, the sound of the ball hitting the glove, or the glove swiping someone's uniform.

It's two totally different worlds, coexisting on the same field. Usually, that coexistence is peaceful, even though it's a tense peace.

On the off chance your question hasnt been answered in whatever it is thats being discussed above...

Thats a terrible call.

As you correctly state, the rule applies to a batter runner - not a runner.

I cant quote a rule for you because there is no such rule; the umpire pulled it out of their @$$.

Not sure how you could argue it other than protest it, though.

I agree with this.

The umpire had not called the play dead in any way as after the out on the runner going to 3rd the ball was thrown to 2B for the double play, despite the runners stalling to prevent that. Runner didn't try to knock the ball out, as it was already in the throwing hand of the player (not that he would have tried anyway. we all remember A. Rod trying that a year or two ago in a playoff game. ;) )

I know, you're right. you guys never want to engage in a lively debate! ;)



I understand all that man. Just want you to know that I am totally not screwing with you and don't want to argue stuff at all. I hate arguing. I always lose.... maybe I should argue with someone other than my wife? :D

Protesting it with a solid understanding of the misapplied rule is the only route I can see taking here. Hence my asking questions about the rules :)

Then as much as I hate saying it, it sounds like the umpire booted the call. I just wanted to be absolutely sure before making that statement (despite the fact that it was my initial reaction).

Of course not! We've got another game after this one! ;)

I hear ya there. Tell you what... If you want to get some insight into an umpire's world, check out this book. Granted, it's baseball, but the cultures are very similar. Even if you aren't interested in the "insight," it's still an amazing read.

Can't help ya there!

Thanks for the input bro. And the book recommendation. Looks like an interesting read. Have to put it on my list.

No problem.

And definitely check out the book. VERY much worth the read. For $17, it's a bargain.

To recap, without all of the fluff:


Runner must be tagged with the ball to record an out. (The ball can be held in the glove or the hand, but whichever is holding the ball must actually tag the runner.)

A runner may retreat to avoid a tag. A batter-runner may not.

Tagging with an empty glove (ball in the other hand)
 

I've had a related incident happen a handful of times, always resulting in a furious DC:

A tag play where the fielder's forearm or elbow is the only thing that contacts the runner (the glove at the end of that arm, holding the ball, never makes contact with the runner).

In all cases it was clearly a "safe" in my judgement, seems to be a black and white call, there must be leather contacting the runner, no?

Yes.

I've made this call many times as well, and it rarely goes over well. All you can do is sell the hell out of it.

If the ball is being held in the glove, yes.

From the perspective of this one player\coach...

I wouldn't argue that call. If you can get a runner out by hitting them with your elbow, why not your shoulder, or your butt, or your foot? where does it end? Slippery slope there. Tag with leather or with the ball. Totally agree.

Of course, then it gets into the "What you saw wasn't what I saw argument" Dave mentioned earlier. And then you guys are the official enforcers of the rules on the field and you call what you call.

Hah, I just wish you guys would admit a mistake every once in a while.

Had a lady ump in our tournament last year. I was playing 1B. shortstop turns a double play (by a good two steps literally) with 1 out and starts running off the field, along with all 12 other guys on the field (including base coaches and the two runners.)

She calls the guy safe at first, to the astonishment of everyone on the field, and the crowd on the first base side of the field.

She later admits to my catcher that she was in a bad position, didn't see it, and blew the call.

Why not just admit it when the bad call is made and fix it?

(That's pretty much a rhetorical question. I know you guys can't really speak for anyone other than yourself ;))

I was taught only to give the safe signal, and no verbal in a situation where the runner was touched with an empty glove. Do you verbalize when you have this?

Reason I ask, is I had the same sitch in a coed rec game, where the male 3B touched female R1 heading to 3B (can't remember how many was on) with just an empty glove while cocking to throw to 2B. I only signaled safe, and didn't verbalize it. He ended up not throwing because R2 was pretty much already at 2B. I didn't call time right away, because R1 was starting to walk away from 3B, when the 3B coach yelled at her to get back on the bag, which she did. I called time, and everyone looked at me, "where's the out call on the runner (R1)?" I signaled and verbalized "safe, tagged with an empty glove". That ended that. (In retrospect, I'm shocked SOMEONE in coed rec had the common sense to tell the runner to get back on the bag!)

you know what, after you said that, it makes me wonder if the ump did intend for the runner going to third to be out or not. i coulda sworn i heard him call OUT when the tag was applied, but its possible the OUT call could have been the throw to 2B. You guys don't have any obligation to tell a runner to get back on the bag before he walks off the field if he is safe.

woulda been nice to get that explanation instead of the BS about retreating to 2B being the cause.

who knows though. too late now.

I've never been taught one way or the other on this. If someone has a better way, I'm all ears. Well, eyes...

I usually wait a second to allow the defense to realize their screw-up. Once I see that the defense isn't going to make another attempt on the runner, I sell the safe call.

A lot of times, it happens when F4 scoops up a grounder and attempts to tag the runner coming from 1B. I still allow the defense the chance to correct the mistake, but they almost never do. Once they've attempted their double play, I then call "safe at 2, safe/out at 1." The only reason I don't call it out right away is because, well, I want to focus on what's going to be the tighter play of the attempted double-play.

This may be wrong, and maybe I'm not describing it well. However, that's what I do. I get some crap for it for the players, but only from the standpoint of "I made the tag, blue!"

Obligation? I consider it more the responsibility of the coaches to tell their runner to get back on the base, but I repeat to a runner leaving the base that they were safe. Most of the time, the runner just hangs around the base and asks when the play is over.

May be this helps. Pg 246-247 Ump manual.

As the play develops, move to get an unobstructed view, read the play, hesitate slightly, and then make the call.

They use call in this section to mean something audible. They use signal for arm movement.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really apply to this specific situation. The question isn't how to get the best angle on the play, but how to make the call when a fielder tags with an elbow or forearm and not the ball (or glove that's holding the ball). How does one make it clear that no real tag was actually made? You could call, "no tag," but that could be confused for "tag," so that's no good. In the past, some would simply call out, "no!" but that's been done away with.

I say let the play unfold just a little further, allow enough time for the defense to correct their mistake, then make the call. If it happens as the first part of a quick double-play attempt with an immediate subsequent call, I wait for the play on the BR to finish, call "safe at 2," then make the call for the play at 1B.

Thanks. Maybe that'll help with the unknowing innocents who play coed wreck. :o

Maybe he's not necessarily trying to pick an argumentMaybe he's just trying to know the right answer..

How bout "NO BALL"?


but I guess someone would pick up in that and follow up with some obscene comment....

Oh, I conceded that. I just wanted him to be clear on how it could be perceived. I did, in the end, answer his question, and I certainly hope he realizes I meant no offense.

That's a start... Anyone else?

Hmmm...I'm thinking that might not be a wise line in coed wreck ball. :D

In all seriousness, we've been instructed to never tell a batter that he has "no balls" when giving the count. I think HugoTafurst's suggestion is a good start, but let's see if there's another way.

Actually, that was also taught to me quite awile ago.
I do mostly women's FP, but either way you look at it, you can't win!:eek:

It was also reccomended that, after all the spares have been hit out of play, it is not advisable to announce, "I HAVE NO BALLS"::o

No hears a less common admonition that I read somewhere, when addressing a female F1, do not use the term "Pitch" :rolleyes:
(I'm not to good about heeding that one - but I try to ennunciate carefully)

No matter what you say in this situation, there is a 50/50 chance a player may react in a manner you didn't expect to a verbal call.

I was taught (and granted it was years ago) that if there was any subsequent play, I would continue with the play and then go back to this misplay with a call (i.e., tag with glove no ball and then a throw to 2B. I'd make the call at 2B then turn back toward the misplay, point at the runner and say something along the lines of, "no tag, safe".

And that's basically what I was advocating, except in the reverse order. I guess it would also depend on how close the subsequent play is. Maybe going primary play first, subsequent play second would give you just a second or two more to process everything (is that nagging voice in the back of my head telling me to slow down again?), but I'm not sure exactly how that would come across.

But you're right, the defense's mistake will bring heat upon you, no matter what you do.

And that USED TO BE the ASA standard. When the newer regime stepped in a few yeras back, we were redirected that a) this was never a written directive from the NUS, so it didn't exist, and b) that we wre required to give the FULL count, meaning the number of balls and strikes, both, any time the count was given.

Back to the earlier question, I use (and the NCAA SUIP directs) "No Tag", while making a "safe" signal. Enunciate, make the clear signal; and if the base coaches fail to coach, oh well, too bad, so sad.

Don't worry Dave, I wasn't offended :D

I say no balls, 2 strikes not zero balls, strikes. F__ the dumb s___ .

Dave, I think you missed the point of an earlier post It said to make a call after doing all the rest. Do that when they make a tag with the forearm. Safe and the safe signal. Obviously they wrote that with a tag at a base in mind (that is what I think but could be wrong), but it still can apply here.

What else do we have about tag plays. Nothing. So I go with what I have. Simple to me. Remember, 39,000 umpires. Saw a play, runner is not out, so I signal and verbalize safe.

When they ask why safe, cuz player tagged with foreman and no part of ball touched the runner.

When they want us to say no tag, they will specifically write this in the manual (that is an assumption on my part).

I like it. I will use it when and where I can.

I believe that generally, this is a good mechanic. However, what is still being taught is that calling "no tag" can be confused for "tag," and that "no tag" should not be used.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying what's being taught.

I use "no tag" and I give the full count.

You dont need to preface the count with "she has.." "we have". Just say "no balls, 2 strikes."

I never have an issue with giving the count. If I get snickers or juvenile crap about that, I've never heard it.