application of ASA 10.3.C (detailed play)

[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.

[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.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

you are getting caught up in the mud.

Someone called me a mudder, the udder day.
I wonder now if that is what they meant.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

you are getting caught up in the mud.
.

Yeah, but we all agree on the dry dirt, so we have to talk about something.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

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.

I understood the "basepath violation" part of your description from the beginning......

[tcannizzo]

'splain me, Lucy.

[Ed Maeder]

I guess I'll ask the question. Why were you involved in the run down when you had multiple runners behind it? I know this was 14 U but there could have been a play during or after the run down that would have had you very much out of position to make the call. This sounds like it was the plate umpires call all the way.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Quote:
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.

That's the way I read the sequence, also.