application of ASA 10.3.C (detailed play)

[okla21fan]

Had this in a 14u HOF Qual last weekend and getting mixed responses if we got it right.

No out, R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, B3 hit a base hit to F7. R1 advances to 3rd and makes a wide turn (while R1 advances to 2nd, B3 to 1st). Throw is behind R1 to F5 on 3rd base getting R1 in a rundown between 3rd and home. there are about 3 to 4 throws between 3rd and home in the rundown and each time R1 'turned' to change directions towards the foul fence eventuality causing R1's basepath to 'change' closer to 12 to 15 feet from the original 3rd base line and basepath. (R1 never had to 'avoid' tag in this rundown, only changing directions as each throw happened)

R2 and B3 seeing the rundown advance to 3rd and 2nd respectively....

Now as R1 is being chased back to 3rd and it looks like she will finally be tagged. R1 'looks' over her left shoulder (away from 3rd) to see the defensive player, causing her to veer further away from 3rd. Defensive player dives, and attempts a tag on R1, of course, as tag is applied, ball pops out of glove.

BU (me) who has been on the 'inside of fair territory' gives a verbal and signal 'SAFE' call. Mayhem ensues as R1 scrambles back to 3rd, and at one point R1 and R2 for a moment or standing on 3rd together. R2 then retreats to 2nd and B3 retreats to 1st with no further play on any runners.

Defensive coach asked for time and asked PU if he thought R1 had left the basepath while avoiding a tag. PU (who is a bit younger in terms of experience) comes to me to discuss the play and I explain that from my 'inside' angle I did not have any avoiding a tag. He states that from his angle (closer to homeplate but in foul territory...I felt we had the play 'boxed' in pretty well) it was clear she was out of the basepath BUT thought that it was my call, so he didnt call anything.

So basically we have a DC 'asking' for help from a partner and partner gives his input which the result is reversing the SAFE call on the tag. I tell PU that if he was clear in what he saw, we should reverse and call R1 OUT at third, which we did.

Offensive coach then asks to place R2 back at third and B3 back at 2nd which is where they were at the time of the infraction (OUT). I agree citing 10.3.C that this 'delayed' call put the offensive team in jeopardy and that had the out been called at the proper time, R2 and B3 would not have retreated.

DC feels that since the ball was live and that the runners 'went back on the own', they should have stayed.

(funny side bar: very next pitch, batter hits a smash to F5 who dives back to third doubling up the runner on 3rd. Inning over, would OC jokingly asking me, 'can I have a do over?')

Being told by some that this was an 'appeal' play and would be enforced at the time of the appeal, however to me, this is not an 'appeal' by definition (even it is common to call 'asking for help from your partner' an 'appeal')

[MD Longhorn]

Asking for partner help is not an appeal as the word is used in the book.

Assuming the reversal of the call was correct (I'm not convinced it was, honestly), the replacement of the runners at 3rd and 2nd was entirely appropriate, as they would have stayed there had the out call be made at the time that out actually happened.

[Dakota]

Your application of 10-3-C was correct, can't say about the judgments applied since I wasn't there.

[derwil]

Sounds good to me. Would you need to wait for the OC to point this out or is it something that should have been done after you determined that R1 was out?

[dtwsd]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

(R1 never had to 'avoid' tag in this rundown, only changing directions as each throw happened)

He states that from his angle (closer to homeplate but in foul territory...I felt we had the play 'boxed' in pretty well) it was clear she was out of the basepath BUT thought that it was my call, so he didnt call anything.

I believe you applied 10.3.C appropriately based on the reversal.

However, I think that based on the above quote(s) in the OP, all that R1 did was re-establish her base path on each direction change. So as long as there was no "avoiding" a tag I would not have reversed my call if I were HP. Of course HTBT.

[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.)

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

...
Now as R1 is being chased back to 3rd and it looks like she will finally be tagged. R1 'looks' over her left shoulder (away from 3rd) to see the defensive player, causing her to veer further away from 3rd. THEN AFTER R1 VEERS - [sic] Defensive player dives, and attempts a tag on R1, of course, as tag is applied, ball pops out of glove.
...

Seems like you answered your own question.
Nothing in what you write indicates she was avoiding a tag.

[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.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Seems like you answered your own question.
Nothing in what you write indicates she was avoiding a tag.

my partner felt the veering never stopped and continued until the tag (and drop). He felt she had veered enough out of the established base path to warrant a call.

I only wish he had called it then

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

my partner felt the veering never stopped and continued until the tag (and drop). He felt she had veered enough out of the established base path to warrant a call.

I only wish he had called it then

If the veering started before the D tried to tag and then continued, I have base path established and no violation.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

If the veering started before the D tried to tag and then continued, I have base path established and no violation.

you are getting caught up in the mud.

My partner had it, and had the angle needed to make such a judgement. That is good enough for me, his judgment is/was not in question. The mistake was simply not calling the violation he saw because he thought I was going to call it. (again, my angle and POV was from inside the diamond. The 'play' and failed tag was between the coaches box, and dugout. ) While I could not tell from the veering that it was avoiding, my partner did. His added input and POV was enough.

[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.