application of ASA 10.3.C (detailed play)

[tcannizzo]

I too question the call. I don't find it valid to say that because in 3 or 4 turns she deviated from her original base path. Each time R1 turns to reverse direction, she establishes a new base path. Unless there was a defender with the ball within 3 feet of R1 and trying to make a tag, there is no violation here.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I too question the call. I don't find it valid to say that because in 3 or 4 turns she deviated from her original base path. Each time R1 turns to reverse direction, she establishes a new base path. Unless there was a defender with the ball within 3 feet of R1 and trying to make a tag, there is no violation here.

Maybe I wasn't clear. There was no 'deviation' in terms of a violation of the basepath in the 3 to 4 turns (change of direction) of R1 and throws by the defense (she was never avoiding a tag). It was only on the final few steps when a defensive player was chasing her down and dove at R1, when R1 turned her head over her left shoulder that caused what the PU felt was a violation. (the OP was chronological, so at the time I used the word 'never', at that point there was no avoiding a tag)

also, as few as the offensive coach and his request to 're-place' R2 and B3, I was explaining to him the ruling on the violation and before I could get to where R2 and B3 should be placed, he interrupted and made the request.

[IRISHMAFIA]

If your partner wasn't sure enough to make the call, he isn't sure enough to convince me to change my call.

IMO, based solely on the play as you presented it, you were fine until you changed your call.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If your partner wasn't sure enough to make the call, he isn't sure enough to convince me to change my call.

When we spoke about the play, he 'was sure' about the call, but 'thought' I was going to call it. IOWs, he thought it was 'my call'. Remember we are both, 'boxed' helping each other in a run down situation. After the game, we spoke and I told him that in that situation, EITHER umpire can and should call a running violation (and OBS or INT) if they see it.

my angle was closer to a 90 degree and about 20 feet from R!, while my partner's angle was pretty much 'in line' with the established basepath. If he had it and for what ever reason didn't call it (even though I didn't), I need more input which he gave to convince that the call should be changed.

That being said, whether the 'judgment' was correct or not, was it a proper application of 10.3.C ? (I am being told by some that it was not.)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

...was it a proper application of 10.3.C ? (I am being told by some that it was not.)

Did you reverse a call? Yes. Did the call reversal place the offense in jeopardy (i.e. adversely affect them)? Yes.

Guess you know my answer already, but the only wiggle room I can see for those who say it was not a proper application is that the runners believing they had to return to previous bases due to R1 being safe at 3B was not putting them in "jeopardy" strictly speaking.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

That being said, whether the 'judgment' was correct or not, was it a proper application of 10.3.C ? (I am being told by some that it was not.)

Honestly, I can't imagine what someone would be thinking if they felt it was not. What was their rationale - what did THEY think should happen. 10.3.C is specifically written for cases like this where an improperly delayed call or an overturned call changed what would have happened had the call occurred at the right moment.

There's no way these two runners return AFTER their player was put out, had that out been announced when it happened. Seems like a textbook case for this rule.