Show intent on going to 2nd

[bsnalex]

A few weeks ago I had this come up--

BR safe at first on the throw and then gently turns into the infield - he was probably a yard overrun from first and maybe 1 - 2 feet infield off the baseline. What I noticed when he was safe is that he did not continue his overrun nor peel off to the right. His left shoulder turned inward and to me, while he didn't show blatant intent to go on to 2nd he certainly made no point of showing me as a blue that he WASN'T going to 2nd.

At that point first baseman turned around and tagged him and I called him out on the tag at which point I got some jaw from one of my fellow umpires who was not working the game, but observing.

He told me (in front of both teams!) that I got the call wrong and that the runner should only be out if he showed intent on going to 2nd. I felt that as he turned his body inward that was intent enough for me. I pulled the player aside after the inning and told him (umps do this as it's a small league and we get alot of new players) that to avoid any doubt run straight thru the base and when you return, make sure you turn your body to the right and walk back to the base on the orange side of the base.

Can I have any thoughts on this? We use ISF book.

[RKBUmp]

First off I dont think any other umpire, even if you were being observed should have said anything during the game let alone in front of other teams. It should have waited until after the game when you were alone and could have discussed it in private.

I dont have an ISF rulebook, but in any other rule set there is no requirement the batter turn to the right or straight back down the line when returning to 1st after an overrun. It is perfectly legal for a batter to turn to the left as long as they do not make an aggressive move toward 2nd.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

First off I dont think any other umpire, even if you were being observed should have said anything during the game let alone in front of other teams. It should have waited until after the game when you were alone and could have discussed it in private.

I dont have an ISF rulebook, but in any other rule set there is no requirement the batter turn to the right or straight back down the line when returning to 1st after an overrun. It is perfectly legal for a batter to turn to the left as long as they do not make an aggressive move toward 2nd.

I'll echo RKBump's comment about your alleged fellow umpire. If anyone should be dressed down, it should have been him.

Secondly, this is obviously a judgment call. However, it is the umpire's responsibility to determine the runner is making an attempt to advance to 2nd, not the runner's to prove s/he is not.

At one time the training (at least in my area) included, probably somewhat similar as you have been told, that ANYTHING, dip of the shoulder, a look back to the left, even a slight drifting of the runner's path into fair territory, WAS to be considered an attempt. I never bought into that theory of dictating what an umpire is to judge.


Over the years, I have learned to use my brain. Okay, enough! IOW, if the runner did something which my eyes showed my brain to tell my gut I needed to react in a manner to take the runner to 2B, there was an attempt.

This isn't supposed to be a "gotcha" play just so the umpire can ring up one of the 42.

[Skahtboi]

I will echo the two previous posts on the alleged umpire who came out to talk to you in front of both teams.

I also agree with their assessment of your call.

[CecilOne]

Me too, on both counts. Even though it seems the call was incorrect, the "observer" was way more wrong.

What IM said about reading it is my guide as well.

But, I do think the advice given to the player to always turn right (as youth coaches teach) is what causes people to think that is the rule. Besides, a runner can turn right and still make an attempt toward 2nd. Not by rule, but physically.

[EsqUmp]

It's not just intent, but ATTEMPT. You have to actually ATTEMPT to advance toward 2nd base.

[bsnalex]

The other ump apologised after the game and said it should have waited.

If I tell a new player to peel to the right, I always say its not the rule to go to the right, just helps remove all doubt of where you're going.

The problem I have is the judgement of an attempt. A player leisurely strolling back to first but also making his way over to the left a bit isn't deliberately making an attempt but could be testing the waters.

Irish, iff I think back to my training I was probably told in class number one that if their in the infield portion and are not returning to first immediately then they're fair game. If anything if I go by that rule internally I'll never waiver in similar calls. It has nothing to do with getting the 42 and going home. BR got to first but he just made zero effort to get back to the bag.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

The other ump apologised after the game and said it should have waited.

If I tell a new player to peel to the right, I always say its not the rule to go to the right, just helps remove all doubt of where you're going.

The problem I have is the judgement of an attempt. A player leisurely strolling back to first but also making his way over to the left a bit isn't deliberately making an attempt but could be testing the waters.

Irish, iff I think back to my training I was probably told in class number one that if their in the infield portion and are not returning to first immediately then they're fair game. If anything if I go by that rule internally I'll never waiver in similar calls. It has nothing to do with getting the 42 and going home. BR got to first but he just made zero effort to get back to the bag.

Then you were given inaccurate information or misunderstood.

The bold portion makes it sound as if you may be confusing to the action to which the rule applies.

The exemption to being put out permits the BR to run through the base and not be required to maintain contact as long as that runner makes no attempt to advance to 2B and returns to the base. Nothing other than an attempt to advance to 2B removes that exemption. If this is the action to which you are referring, IMO, you are looking at it from the wrong side of the rule.

The rule clearly states that if the runner makes an attempt to advance to 2B, that runner is in jeopardy of being put out. It says nothing about losing that given exemption if s/he doesn't return as quick as the umpire desires. It says nothing about infield, outfield, grass, dirt, etc.

Now, back to the bold portion above. If you are referring to a player rounding the base toward 2B, they are "fair game" whether they are returning to 1B immediately or not, as rounding the base is a clear attempt of advancement. That BR/R never obtained an exemption from being put out since there was an immediate indication of possible advancement toward 2B.

[chapmaja]

This play lead to the only ejection I have ever called in 4 or 5 years of adult league games. Ground ball to second base, the throw to first is over the head of F3, who jumps into the path of the batter-runner. The batter-runner has to lean into the field of play and barely touches first as he tries avoiding contact with F3, who has come down right on the middle of 1b. This move by the runner causes him to run into the field of play, but he makes no attempt to advance to second. The catcher had come down to back up the throw, and throws to F4 who tags the runner returning to 1b. I rule safe, no attempt to advance. The "manager" absolutely goes crazy, charges out of the dugout, dropping F-bomb after F-bomb. I didn't get the chance to eject him before he was right at me, but as soon as I could he was tossed for charging and berating an umpire. Luckily his team held him back, because on a 1 umpire system you are alone if someone goes crazy.

I agree with the previous comments, your play should not have resulted in an out, and the observer should not have did what he did either.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

His left shoulder turned inward and to me, while he didn't show blatant intent to go on to 2nd he certainly made no point of showing me as a blue that he WASN'T going to 2nd.

At that point first baseman turned around and tagged him and I called him out on the tag

Called him out for what? Bad call.

at which point I got some jaw from one of my fellow umpires who was not working the game, but observing. He told me (in front of both teams!) that I got the call wrong and that the runner should only be out if he showed intent on going to 2nd.

Worse. Way worse. No umpire should ever do this to another umpire. He's correct, of course, but calling you out, especially in front of teams, is worse than any bad call you could have made.

I felt that as he turned his body inward that was intent enough for me. I pulled the player aside after the inning and told him (umps do this as it's a small league and we get alot of new players) that to avoid any doubt run straight thru the base and when you return, make sure you turn your body to the right and walk back to the base on the orange side of the base.

And worse than worse. 1) You've instilled a rule that is not correct in this kid's mind. 2) You've coached the kid - not your job, don't ever do this. If it's a learning league, and your input might help, tell the COACH, not the kid (and be 150% sure you are correct when you're doing this... you were not in this case!)

PS - for you to have an out on this play, the player must make an attempt to advance to second. Period. He doesn't have to turn right. He doesn't have to walk back to first (he can run). What you describe was not even close to enough.

[bsnalex]

Thanks to all for your input...definitely will get it right next time

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This play lead to the only ejection I have ever called in 4 or 5 years of adult league games. Ground ball to second base, the throw to first is over the head of F3, who jumps into the path of the batter-runner. The batter-runner has to lean into the field of play and barely touches first as he tries avoiding contact with F3, who has come down right on the middle of 1b. This move by the runner causes him to run into the field of play, but he makes no attempt to advance to second.

Plus, in all likelihood and fairness, the obstruction that was caused probably carried through the base; so, the BR was protected between 1st and 2nd base. It's similar to a 3rd baseman tripping the runner, causing him/her to go over 3rd base and then tagging the runner saying "she went beyond the base." Here, the effect of the obstruction continued beyond the spot of the initial obstruction.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Plus, in all likelihood and fairness, the obstruction that was caused probably carried through the base; so, the BR was protected between 1st and 2nd base. It's similar to a 3rd baseman tripping the runner, causing him/her to go over 3rd base and then tagging the runner saying "she went beyond the base." Here, the effect of the obstruction continued beyond the spot of the initial obstruction.

I've never heard of that distinction. As far as I'm concerned, the obstruction happened AT first base (and it's quite possible that the BR became hindered as he approached first, given the description of the play). He was never between first and second when hindrance took place. I'm not sure we are allowed to extend the effect of the initial obstruction such that, if he were to attempt to go to second and gets tagged out by a huge margin, he would be allowed to return safely to first.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Plus, in all likelihood and fairness, the obstruction that was caused probably carried through the base; so, the BR was protected between 1st and 2nd base.

No, but he didn't need it - the BR may have fallen toward 2nd, but he made no effort to go to 2nd.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Plus, in all likelihood and fairness, the obstruction that was caused probably carried through the base; so, the BR was protected between 1st and 2nd base. It's similar to a 3rd baseman tripping the runner, causing him/her to go over 3rd base and then tagging the runner saying "she went beyond the base." Here, the effect of the obstruction continued beyond the spot of the initial obstruction.

I have made a call similar to this. Jr College game using NCAA rules.

R1 running to third, F5 obstructs R1, causing R1 to attempt an awkward slide to get around the obstructing fielder. R1 doesn't really slide, but kind of rolls over and past third base into foul territory near the coaches box. F5 receives the ball and tags R1 who is off of third base. I call a dead ball and award third base to R1. Explained the call to the defensive coach who accepted the explanation.

I had the same concern that the obstruction happened between second and third and the runner was tagged out past third base. But the obstruction is what caused the awkward slide and the runner to go past third base. I talked to my JC league assigner about the call and he agreed with it.