Force runner question - ASA

[wolraht]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wolraht

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?

[wolraht]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

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?

[BretMan]

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

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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

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.

[wolraht]

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.

[wolraht]

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!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wolraht

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.

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?

Originally Posted by wolraht

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wolraht

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.

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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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?

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

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

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.

[wolraht]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

Don't worry Dave, I wasn't offended

[ronald]

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).